Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

Full text of "Defensio fidei Nicaenae = a defence of the Nicene Creed : out of the extant writings of the Catholick doctors, who flourishsed during the three first centuries of the Christian Church"

See other formats









































IN which the occasion, design, and division of the entire 
work are set forth .... 1 




The Proposition stated: and the former part of it, viz. the pre-existence of 
the Son before [His incarnation] of the blessed Virgin Mary, demon 
strated . . . . . . . .15 


The second part of the proposition is established, respecting the pre-existence 
of the Son before the foundation of the world, and the creation of all 
things through Him . . . . . . .36 




The subject proposed. The word &/J.OOIHTIOS, "of one substance," explained 
at length. The Nicene fathers cleared from the suspicion of em 
ploying new and strange language, in using this word to express the 
true Godhead of the Son. The opposition between the council of 
Antioch against Paul of Samosata, and the council of Nice against 
Arius, reconciled. Proof that the term &/J.OOV<TIOS was not derived 
from heretics. A brief review of the heads of the arguments by which 
the Antenicene doctors confirmed the consubstantiality . .55 





The doctrine of the author of the epistle ascribed to Barnabas, of Hermas, 
or the Shepherd, and of the martyr Ignatius, concerning the true 
Divinity of the Son, set forth . . . ... 86 


Clement of Rome and Polycarp incidentally vindicated from the aspersions 

of the author of the Irenicum, and of Sandius .... 104 


Containing an exposition of the views of Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, 
Tatian, and Theophilus of Antioch ; with an incidental declaration of 
the faith of Christians respecting the Holy Trinity, in the age of 
Lucian, out of Lucian himself . . . . . .135 


Setting forth the doctrine of Irenaeus, concerning the Son of God, most 

plainly confirmatory of the Nicene Creed .... 160 


Containing exceedingly clear testimonies out of St. Clement of Alexandria, 
concerning the true and supreme Divinity of the Son, and, further, 
concerning the consubstantiality of the whole most Holy Trinity . 181 


Wherein the doctrine of Tertullian, concerning the consubstantiality of the 

Son, is shewn to coincide altogether with the Nicene Creed . .193 


The Nicene Creed, on the article of the consubstantiality of the Son, is con 
firmed by the testimonies of the presbyter Cains, and of the celebrated 
bishop and martyr St. Hippolytus ..... 206 


Wherein it is shewn fully and clearly that the doctrine of Origen concerning 
the true Divinity of the Son of God was altogether catholic, and per 
fectly consonant with the Nicene Creed, especially from his work 
against Celsus, which is undoubtedly genuine, and most free from cor 
ruption, and which was composed by him when in advanced age, and 
with most exact care and attention . . . . .217 




Concerning the faith and views of the martyr Cyprian, of Novatian, or the 
author of a treatise on the Trinity among the works of Tertullian, and 
of Theognostus ........ 285 


In which is set forth the consent of the Dionysii of Rome and of Alex 
andria with the Nicene fathers . . . . . 302 


On the opinion and faith of the very celebrated Gregory Thaurnaturgus, 

bishop of Neocaesarea in Pontus ..... 322 


Wherein the opinion, touching the consubstantiality of the Son, of the six 
bishops of the council of Antioch, who wrote an epistle to Paul of 
Samosata, as well as of Pierius, Pamphilus, Lucian, Methodius, mar 
tyrs, is shewn to be catholic, and plainly consonant to the Nicene 
Creed . . 336 


The opinion and faith of Arnobius Afer and Lactantius, touching the true 
divinity of the Son is declared. The second book on the consubstantiality 
is wound up with a brief conclusion ..... 358 




The connection of this book with the preceding. The first proposition 
stated respecting the eternity of the Son ; confirmed first by the most 
explicit testimonies of the apostolic father, Ignatius. A notable pas 
sage in his epistle to the Magnesians clearly explained and illustrated. 
The Gnostics parents of the Arians . ... 369 




The doctrine of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, -and Clement of Alexandria, re 
specting the eternity of the Son, unfolded .... 402 


Very clear testimonies of Origen respecting the co-eternity of the Son ad 
duced . 411 


The decree of the Nicene fathers concerning the co-eternal existence of the 
Son with His Father, confirmed by most express testimonies of Cy 
prian, Dionysius of Rome and of Alexandria, Gregory Thaumaturgus, 
the six bishops who wrote from the council of Antioch to Paul of Samo- 
sata, Theognostus, Methodius, Pamphilus the martyr, and Arnobius . 420 


The second proposition stated, concerning those fathers, who, though they 
may appear to have denied, did yet in reality acknowledge, the eternity 
of the Son. The opinion of Athenagoras respecting the co-eternity of 
the Son accurately explained ...... 433 


The doctrine of Tatian respecting the eternity of the Son fully set forth . 448 


The views and belief of Theophilus of Antioch respecting the eternity of the 
Son clearly shewn to have been, in the main, sound, catholic, and 
agreeing with the Nicene Creed , 459 


The doctrine of St. Hippolytus the martyr respecting the co-eternity of the 
Son, and that of Novatian, or the author of the book concerning the 
Trinity among the works of Tertullian, declared . . . 470 


The third proposition stated, respecting the co-eternity of the Son ; in which 
the view of those Antenicene fathers who have been treated of in the 



four preceding chapters, is more fully illustrated by testimonies of 
catholic doctors who lived after the rise of the Arian controversy . 484 


The doctrine of Tertullian and of Lactantius respecting the eternity of the 

Son examined. Conclusion of the third book .... 508 





The first proposition touching the subordination of the Son to the Father as 
to His origin and principle, stated. This is also confirmed by the 
unanimous consent of the ancients. It is shewn, that that expression 
of certain modern writers, by which they designate the Son, avT66eos, 
that is, of Himself God, is quite repugnant to the judgment of the 
Nicene council itself, and also to that of all the catholic doctors, both 
those who wrote before, and those who wrote after, that council . 556 


The second proposition stated and confirmed, wherein it is shewn, that the 
ancients taught with one consent, on the one hand, that God the Father, 
in that He is His origin and principle, is greater than the Son ; and on 
the other hand, that in respect of nature the Son is equal to the Father 571 


A full answer is given to the objection against what has been argued in the 
preceding chapter, derived from those passages of the ancients in which 
they seem to have denied the immensity and invisibility of the Son 
of God . 594 


The third proposition is stated, in which the use of the doctrine of the sub 
ordination of the Son is set forth . 627 







CHAPTER 11. 2. Of St. Barnabas . . . . .669 

6. Of St. Hermas . . . . . .675 


CHAPTER ii. 1, Sic. Of St. Barnabas .... .676 

2, &c. Of St. Hermas . . . . .682 

6. Of St. Ignatius . . . . .684 

CHAPTER in. 3, &c. Of St. Clement of Home .... 685 

Testimonies to the Divinity of Christ from the testaments of the twelve 

patriarchs . . . . . . . .694 

CHAPTER iv. 1, &c. Of St. Justin Martyr . . . .695 

10. Of Tatianand Theophilus of Antioch . . .698 

CHAPTER v. Of St. Irenaeus ...... 699 

Of Melito . . . . . . .703 

CHAPTER vi. 2, &c. Of St. Clement of Alexandria . . .705 

CHAPTER vin. 1. OfCaius ...... 707 

2. Of Hippolytus . . . . .708 

CHAPTER x. 1, &c. Of St. Cyprian, and his citing of the words of St. John, 

1 Epist. v. 7 712 

6. Of Novatian ...... 719 

CHAPTER xi. 5, 6. Of St. Dionysius of Alexandria . . .721 

CHAPTER xn. 4. Of Gregory Thaumaturgus Confession of Faith . 723 

CHAPTER xin. 4, &c. Of St. Lucian the Martyr . . . 724 

9, &c. Of St. Methodius . . . . . ib. 

Of St. Peter, Bp. of Alexandria and Martyr . . . .726 




CHAPTER n. 1, &c. Of St. Justin Martyr . 727 

4. Of St. Irenaeus . . . . -729 


CHAPTER i. 10. [On the word aurofleJs] . . . . .731 

CHAPTER in. 5, &c. [Of St. Justin Martyr] . . . .732 






1. THE doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son having 
been established by the suffrages of the Aritenicene fathers, 
His co-eternity follows from it by a consequence absolutely 
necessary. For He who is truly and properly God, and is 
begotten of the substance of God, must necessarily possess 
all the peculiar attributes of God, infinity, immensity, eter 
nity, omnipotence, the being uncreated, and unchangeable 1 , l rb &KTI- 
with those other properties, without which true Godhead ZT^ TTTOV, 
cannot subsist. There is scarcely one of the writers who hoce f tz "~ 


came after the council of Nice, who has not made this ob- tem, ut sic 
servation in opposition to the Arians. But Cyril, in the Io 1 uar > &c - 
ninth book of his Thesaurus, sets forth this point at large, 
and shews that it follows especially with respect to eternity. 
Among others which bear on this subject, the following [474] 
words of his are particularly plain and express 3 ; "And as, 
had it appeared that He was additionally brought into being 2 , 2 t> 7r P 0<r - 
He had not been consubstantial 3 : even so, this not being ^ a LVeT o. 

a Kal &STTep ei irpocryeyovtos e ^cuVero, Hffrai ital 6/j.oo6(Tios. [Cyril. Alex., 
OVK fry ty 6/jLooiHTios, ovTtos e n-ei prj rov- vol. v. p. 67.] 
r6 earriv, a\\ l\v aei avv a.vr<p, irdvTcas 

BULL. B }) 

370 The Consubstantiality implies the Co-eternity of the Son. 

ON THE the case, but He having been always with Him, assuredly 
NI TY^F" ^ e mu st be consubstantial also." And again, a little after b ; 
THE SON. (f ;p or nothing will be co- eternal with the Father which is 

1 e| avrov n ot naturally of Him 1 ; lest we should say that that belongs 

to the creatures also, which belongs to the divine nature 
alone. Therefore, although the Son hath His own Father 

2 pxV- as a principle 2 , yet inasmuch as He is of the principle, and 

hath His being concurrent 3 with It, He will not be dissi- 
milar 4 to It in substance. For since He is of 5 the principle, 
4 a.v6fioios. He is on that account of one substance also with the prin 
ciple ; but that which is of one substance with the Father, 
not an after-addition 6 lest Himself be found to be so 



TOV " ad- 
ventitium too." 

in tem- g. j$ u t because some self-complacent persons have thought 
the Antenicene fathers so dull and absolutely stupid as not 
to have perceived a consequence so manifest, and to have 
advanced in consequence opinions on this article no way 
consistent, but simply repugnant to each other, I have 
thought that it would be worth while to put before the 
reader a distinct and separate explanation of their doc 
trine respecting the co-eternal existence of the Son with the 
Father. Some, indeed, of the testimonies of the ancients, 
establishing the eternity of the Son, I have already, when 
engaged on another subject, adduced in the preceding book; 
but the argument deserves to be handled again, and that 
specially. Since, however, on this subject the ancient doc 
tors of the Church have made use, not of different state 
ments, but of a different mode of expression, this third book 
of ours cannot, like the preceding two, be completed in one 
proposition only, but will have to be drawn out, as the case 
requires, in several conclusions. Let the first of these con 
clusions or propositions be as follows : 

b ov yap sffrai ri ffw&t&tov r$ Tla- avv^po^ov avrrj rb efz/ai %xu>v, a 

rpl, IJ.T] fa e avrov fyvaiKtas Lva, ^ ical OVK ecrrat Kara r-^jv ovaiav avrfj. 4irei5)) 

rols KTia/tacri TOVTO Trpoffe ivai \4ytoftetf t yap e rrjs apxvs ecm, Sia TOVTO Kal 

p6ff(TTL rf) deia (pvffet. OVKOVV 6/JLoov(Tios rfj o-pxV r ^ ^ 0/j.oo^criov rep 

px^Jf 6 vlbs fXV T ^ v eavrov ira- Tlarpl eTnyevrjTov OVK %(TTI iva. ^ rov- 

a\\a KaQb e rrjs apx^s etrrt, TO &v evpiffKyTat, Kal avr6s. [Ibid.] 

Ignatius ; the Son above and independent of time. 371 


THE more authoritative 1 and larger part of the doctors i po tior. 
who lived before the Nicene council, unambiguously, openly, 
clearly, and perspicuously taught and professed the co-eter 
nity (TO a-vvatSiov) of the Son, that is, His co-eternal exist 
ence with God the Father. 

3. In the front rank of these fathers we may justly place 
Ignatius, a most abundant witness to the catholic doctrine 
which obtained in the Churches in the very age of the Apo 
stles. In his epistle to Polycarp c he thus addresses his most 
holy brother bishop ; " Look for Him who is above [all] time 2 , 8 virep K ai- 
Him who is independent of time 3 , Him who is invisible, Him P 3 ^ 
who for our sake was visible, Him who is impalpable, Him 
who is not liable to suffering, Him who for our sake be 
came liable to suffering, Him who for our sake endured in 
every way." He is manifestly speaking of the Son of God, 
ascribing to Him, in addition to other divine attributes, this 
also, that He is above [all] time 4 , independent of time 5 , 4 fafpKai- 
that is, eternal. For such was the simplicity of this aposto- f/ 
lical man, that he must by no means be supposed to have U76] 
played upon the word time, as tne crafty Arians afterwards 
did. Of the authorship of this epistle, the illustrious Isaac 
Vossius has in few words, in his notes on the title of the 
epistle, stated enough to satisfy impartial minds. But our 
very learned Pearson, in the introduction to his Vindicite 
Epist. S. Ignatii^j in treating at large on this subject, has 
refuted the singular opinion of Ussher, in such a way as to 
leave now no room for doubt, that this epistle ought to be 
counted amongst those which were held to be Ignatius s in 
the time of Eusebius. Further, the same Ignatius, in his 
epistle to the Magnesians, most explicitly declares the eter 
nity of the Son, in these words 6 ; " There is one God, who 

c rbi/ inrepKaipov TrpoaSona, rbv &XP~ " f ^ s *6s fcrriv, 6 (pavepctxras 

vov, rbv a6pa.Tov, TOV SC T]/ dparbv, Sia Irjffov Xptarov, TOV vlov avrov, 6s 

T&J/ atyr]\d(f>r)Tov, rbv a7ra07j, rbi* St tcmv avrov \6yos a iSios, OVK airb criyris 

T)( iraQirrbv, T^V Kara Travra rp6irov irpoeXOdv. Pag. 34. [ 8. p. 19. Bp. 

Si f}/ vTrofj-dfavra. Pag. 12. [ 3. Bull adds before the Latin which he 

P- 40.] gives, "juxta versionem veteris inter- 

d c. 6. p. 21, &c. pretis Usseriani, quern ubique fere se- 

B b2 

372 The Word not having come forth from Silence ; to 
THE manifested Himself through Jesus Christ His Son,, WHO is 




4. I am aware that there are some who contend from this 
passage that these epistles are not Ignatius s ; seeing that, as 
they think, those words, "not having come forth from si 
lence/ glance at the peculiar error of Valentinus, which had 
not arisen in the lifetime of Ignatius. To this objection, 
however, our right reverend Bp. Pearson, (after Ussher, Vos- 
sius, and Hammond, whose statements had not satisfied Daille 
and others, that were too much influenced by party spirit,) 
purposing to reply at length, proposes to himself to prove 
the four following propositions : 1. That the words, "not 

[477] having come forth from silence/ strike at the heresy of the 
Ebionites ; 2. That they do not at all refer to Valeritinus ; 
3. That the heresy which is supposed to be aimed at in 

acceptam. these words is older than Valentinus, and was derived 1 [by 
him] from the ancient Gnostics ; 4. That it cannot be proved 
for certain that the actual errors of Valentinus were alto 
gether unknown to Ignatius. And in treating of these 
points he so developes his erudition of all kinds, and especi 
ally his very great acquaintance with ecclesiastical antiquity, 
that he is on this account deservedly held in honour and 
admiration by all men of learning and piety ; and moreover, 
what he advances, especially in proof of his third proposition, 
is abundantly sufficient to refute all the cavils of Blondel 
and Daille. I am compelled, however, to dissent in some 
points from this very learned father, whom I honour and 
reverence in the highest degree; and I humbly entreat his 
175 kindness and candour to allow me frankly to put forward 
my opinion on this famous passage of Ignatius ; especially 
since it is of very great importance that I should do so, in 
order to establish that most momentous truth, which we are 
engaged in unfolding. I am persuaded that in the words 
adduced, and in the whole passage to which those words 
belong, Ignatius had an eye neither to the Valentinians nor 
to the Ebionites, but that his censure altogether refers to 

quor," (i. e. " according to the ver- The Latin here exactly represents the 
sion of the. ancient translator given by Greek.] 
Ussher, which I almost always follow." 

what heretics these words refer : context quoted. 373 

those judaizing Gnostics, of whom Cerinthus was chief, who BOOK m. 
lived long before Valentinus, and was contemporary with the f s_lj. 
Apostles themselves, and whose heresy disturbed the Churches IGNATIUS< 
of Asia most of all in the time of Ignatius. Before I bring 
forward my reasons for this opinion of mine, I think it well, 
in order that the subject may be more clearly laid open, to 
quote the context of the passage from Ignatius entire. 

5. Thus, then, doth the holy man speak to his Magnesians f ; 
" Do ye then all run together as unto (one) temple of God, 
as unto one altar, as unto one Jesus Christ, who came forth 
from one Father, and is and hath returned 1 into one. Be x^M- 
not deceived with the strange doctrines 2 , nor with the old 2 ^ 
fables, which are unprofitable ; for if we still up to this time 8ofaw. 
live according to the law (of Judaism ,) we confess that we [478] 
have not received grace. For the most divine prophets lived 
according to Christ Jesus ; for this cause also were they per 
secuted, being inspired by His grace, in order that they that 
believed not might be fully convinced that there is one God, 
who manifested Himself through His Son Jesus Christ, who 
is His eternal Word, not having come forth from silence, 
who in all things was well-pleasing to Him that sent Him. 
If, then, they who lived under an old state of things 3 came 
[nevertheless] to the newness of hope, no longer observing 
the sabbath, but leading a life suitable to the Lord s day, on 
which also our life arose through Him and His death, whicn 
[death] some deny, (through which mystery we have been 
brought to believe, and do therefore endure, in order that 
we may be found disciples of Jesus Christ, our only teacher,) 
how shall we be able to live apart from Him, of whom the 
prophets also being disciples, did through the Spirit look for 

f Trdvres ovv ws els (eVa) vabv (rvv- tffriv avrov \6yos cu Sios. OVK curb ffiyr/s 

rpe xere 0eoD, a>s firl ev 6v(nao~T-r]piov, irpoe\6wv, hs Kara iravra evr)pe<TTT](rv 

&s firl eVa Irjaovi/ Xpurrbv, TOV a<^> T< W/ufttUTi at/roV. ei ovv ol V TraAcu- 

evbs FLarpbs irpo\86i Ta, /ecu fls eVa o?s irpd y/jiaa iv avaffTpatytvTes els tcaivo- 

VVTO. Kal xcap-rjffa.i Ta. /u.r] TrXavaaOe TCUS TTjra eATrtSos tf\v6ov, /tirjwert ffaftfteert- 

6Tepo5ojcus, jUTjSe juvOev/j.cKrii TO?S ira- ovres, aAAoi Karh Kvpiaicrjv fiwr/i cSi>-- 

Aaio?s avtofysXtatv otHriv. et yap jttexpt res, eV ?? Kal farj fyft&v ai/eretAev Si 

vvv Kara v6/uoi> lovSai cr^w ^"ciyuev, 6iJ.o- avTOV Kal TOV Oavdrov avTov, ov Tives 

XoyovfAev x L P lv W ffATj^eVai. ot yap apvuvi/Tai, (i ov ^.vffr^piov e\d/3ofj.ev 

OedraToi irpofyrirai Kara. XpHTrbv irj- rb TTKnevew, Kal Sia TOVTO viro/j.fvo/j.ev 

crovv efaaav Sia TOVTO Kal e 8ic;$T7<rcu , tva fvpeOcau-fv fj.adr]Tal lr)(Tov Xpiffrov 

e/uLTrvfo/uLfvoi VTTO TTj? ^cxptTos auToD, fls TOV jj.6vov 8t5a(r/faAou ri/ucov ) ircas f]/j.f7s 

rb Tr\r)po(popr]9rii ai rovs a.irziQovvTa<i, Swriao/j-eOa ^aai xwpls avrov ; ov Kal 

ort fls eos farij , o fyavepcixras favrbf ol irpofyrirai /nadrjral ovrts, TW 

8ia I?j(7oC XpiffTov TOV vlov avTov, 6s as 8i5a(j/caAo/ ainov irpoaedoKow, 


1 KaAeti/ 
[leg. Aa- 


ham os. 

374 Passage from St . Ignatius s Epistle to the Magnesians. 

Him as their teacher? and for this cause, He whom they 
righteously waited for did on His coming raise them from 
the dead. Let us not, then, be insensible to His goodness ; 
for if He shall imitate 11 us, [acting] according as we act, 
we shall no longer be in being. Wherefore, having become 
His disciples, let us learn to live according to Christianity ; 
for whosoever is called by any other name beyond this, is not 
of God. Lay aside, then, the evil leaven, which hath become 
old and sour, and be ye changed into new leaven, which is 
Jesus Christ. Be ye salted in Him, lest any one among you 
be corrupted, for 1 by your savour shall ye be proved. For 
it is absurd to profess 1 Christ Jesus, and then to judaize. 
For Christianity believed not in Judaism, but Judaism in 
Christianity; that [people of] every tongue 2 , having be 
lieved, might be gathered unto God. These things, my 
beloved, [I write unto you,] not because I know that any of 
you are in this condition, but, as the least among you, I am 
desirous to put you on your guard, that ye fall not into the 
snares 3 of vainglory ; but that ye may be fully persuaded of 
the birth, and the passion, and the resurrection, which things 
took place in the time of the government of Pontius Pilate, 
being truly and certainly accomplished by Jesus Christ, [who 
is] our hope, from which may it not happen to any one 
amongst you to be turned aside." 

Sia rovro bv StKatcas ave^evov, Trapwv 
tfyeipev avrovs e /c veKpwv. p.}] ofiv avai- 


yap ? c //.ias erai. KaOa 7rpa<rcro/xej/, 
OVK eri efffj-ev 5ia rovro /xa07jral avrov 
yff6/J.evoi, /jLadca/jLev Kara \piffriavL< 
%riv. os yap a\\a) bvo^ari KaAeTrat TrAe- 
ov rovrov, OVK etrriv rov ecu. virep- 
6eo~de ovv rfy K.aKT]v %vp.riv r^v iraAcuw- 
Oe iaav Kal eVo|i<ra<raj>, Kal jtieTaj8aAe<r0e 
ets veav ^v/]v, o earrtv irjaoDs Xpifrros. 
aAto"07jT6 et/ aur^j, iva /u.)] Sia<t>6aprj ris . 
4v vfj.1v, eTrel OTT^ rfjs OCT^UTJS f\y^9r]- 
fford. aroTrov ecrrtj/ Xpurrbv Ir)<rovv 
Ka\f~iv, Kal lovSaifeiv. 6 yap Xptcrrt- 
avi(T/ OVK els louSaiV^bi fTricrrevcrfV, 
aAAa loySai cr/x^s fls XpKTriavio, us 
naaa yXwcraa niffrevaaa a els Qebj/ av- 
viiX^ [] o-wax0p]. ravra Se, 070:^7- 
roi /J.QV, OVK eirel syvw rivas e | vfj.S)V 
ovrws eovras, aAA 5 us piKp6repos vauv, 


els ra ayKurrpa TT/S 

rtp irdOei, Kal rfj avaa-rdfffi rf] yevojj.evri 
eV Kaipy rrjs r)y/J.ovias Tlouriov IltAa- 
rov, Tcpa\Qevra a\r)6<as Kal fiefiaiws virb 
Xpio-rov TTJS e ATrtSos T]p.(av, r\s 
r)5evl vp.Sov yevoiro. Pag. 
34, 35. [ 7. p. 19. The Latin trans 
lation given by Bishop Bull is the old 
version as edited hy Ussher; he intro 
duces it with the words, "juxta versio- 
nem interpretis Usseriani veteris."] 

6 Read lov8aKr/j.ov, or omit the word 
altogether. See the notes of Vossius 
in locum. [Bishop Bull s conjecture is 
followed in the translation, more recent 
editors would omit vop.ov.~\ 

h fj.ifjiT](Terai. The learned author in 
the margin observed that the reading 
should be ri^a-erai, "estimate us, ac 
cording as we act," following the con 
jecture of Vedelius and Isaac Vossius. 
But suppose you restore fj.u/jL-f)o-erai, 
"censure," from the Codex Nydprucci- 
anus of the interpolated copy of this epi 
stle, or /utirrjo-eTat, " hate," after Clement 

Indications that the Gnostics are referred to in this passage. 375 

6. Here the context most plainly shews that altogether BOOK m. 
the same heretics are intended from the beginning to the ^s^! 
end of the passage. But who were these heretics ? That I GNATIUS . 
the Valentinians are not the persons treated of (as Blondel [480] 
and Daille dreamt) is most certain ; since it is clear from the 176 
passage taken as a whole, that the heretics whom Ignatius is 
aiming at, were professors of Judaism, which no one of the 
ancients has asserted, nor any of the moderns (so far as I 
know) has ever heard, of the Valentinians. Of the heretics, 
however, of whom he is speaking, Ignatius declares that [481] 
"they lived according to Judaism, that they observed the 
sabbath, and that, whilst they professed Jesus Christ, they 
nevertheless judaized." To this argument, which was ad 
vanced by Bishop Pearson, the author of the Observations k 
on his work made no reply ; nor, indeed, will he ever be able 
to make any reply that is solid. Now as respects the Ebion- 
ites, although the mark of Judaism agrees with their case, 
still every other part of the description suits the Gnostics 
more exactly; whilst some parts cannot be understood of any 
others than they. For, in the first place, the words in which 
Ignatius exhorts the Magnesians, " to run together unto one 
Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father, and is and 
hath returned unto one," are plainly aimed against the Gnos 
tics, especially the Cerinthians ; for the Cerinthians did not 
believe in one Jesus Christ, but taught that Jesus was one, 
Christ another, who came down from the supreme power 1 l a summa 
upon Jesus after His baptism, and returned again from Jesus nt a te. 
before His passion, back to His own pleroma. Nor did they 
acknowledge one Father of Jesus Christ ; but professed, as 
I shall hereafter shew from Irenseus, that the Father of 
Jesus was the Demiurgus or creator of the world, and that 
a higher power was the Father of Christ. Next, when Ig 
natius afterwards says that the prophets of the Old Testa 
ment "were inspired by the grace of Christ to convince 
the unbelievers that there is one God, who hath manifested 

of Alexand., Pcedagog. i. 8. p. 113. []). trerat is now the received reading.] 
135,] where he writes, in evident imi- ! [The Latin here is, qui redargue- 

tation of this passage of Ignatius, e<f n mini ; Grabe s is quia instead of qiti.] 
&pa jj.KTd i o \6yos, jSouAerot avrb fj^i * [Matt. Larroque ; see above, p. 

e!i>cu, (if the Word hate any thing, lie 51.] 
wishes it not to exist.) GRABE. [iJ.ifj.-fi- 

376 Evidence that the Cerinthian heretics are intended ; 

ON THE Himself through Jesus Christ His Son :" in these words 
^ITY^F" again the Gnostics are evidently glanced at. For they all, 
THE SON - and they alone, taught, that the God who created the 
world was one, the God who manifested Himself to man 
kind through Christ His Son, another. Moreover, as to the 
clause itself of Ignatius, about which we are enquiring, 
although I should readily grant that the words, " not having 
proceeded from silence," were added by way of explana 
tion, to explain (i. e.) what was said before concerning the 
[482] eternity of the Word ; still I think it is manifest that by that 
explanation Ignatius intended to meet some erroneous no 
tion of the heretics whom he is glancing at, respecting the 
1 de Verbi putting forth of the Word 1 . Now about this putting forth the 
Ebionites did not frame any theory 2 : whereas the Gnostics 

ninil phi- * 

losophati in general, and particularly the Cerinthians, conceived a very 
absurd opinion concerning it ; for the refutation of which, as 
we shall see hereafter, these words of Ignatius are most appo 
site. And what is more, I am altogether of opinion that the 
ancient Ebionites did not at any time even use the name or 
word Aojos [in speaking] of Christ ; forasmuch as they ab 
solutely rejected the Gospel of St. John, in which Christ is 
called 6 ^070^, using only the Gospel according to St. Mat 
thew, as Irenaeus expressly testifies, i. 26. Furthermore, 
when Ignatius, after he had reminded them that Chris 
tians " ought not to observe the Sabbath," but " live suitably 
to the Lord s day, on which also our life arose, through 
Him (Christ) and His death," immediately subjoins, " which 
certain deny," he intimates in no obscure way, that those 
judaizing heretics whom he is censuring, had joined to their 
error about the necessity of observing the law of Moses, 
another also that was much worse, that is, the denial of the 
real passion and death of Christ. This, however, cannot be 
truly asserted of the Ebionites ; but of the Cerinthian Gnos 
tics it is, as we shall presently shew, most truly affirmed. 
Lastly, the conclusion of this passage from Ignatius most 
plainly establishes our view ; " These things, my beloved," he 
says, " [I write unto you,] not because I know that any of 
you are in this condition, but, as the least among you, I am 
desirous to put you on your guard, that ye fall not into the 
snares of vainglory, but that ye may be fully persuaded of 

who denied the reality of our Saviour s sufferings. 377 

the birth, and the passion, and the resurrection, which things BOOK in. 

took place in the time of the government of Pontius Pilate, H ^ e * 

being truly and certainly accomplished by Jesus Christ [who IGNATIUS. 

is] our hope ; from which may it not happen to any one of you [483] 

to be turned aside." From these words, I say, it is perfectly 

clear that the heretics against whom Ignatius is warning 

the Magnesians in what goes before, were not Ebionites, 

but Gnostics. For he exhorts the Magnesians not to fall 

into the snares of the heretics, and prescribes this as an 

antidote 1 against their poison, that they be fully persuaded 1 a^e^dp- 

that Jesus Christ was truly born and suffered, and truly /uc " 

rose again from the dead in the times of Pontius Pilate, and 

that they permit not themselves to be drawn aside from that 

persuasion. But, I repeat, this surely had no reference to 

the Ebionites ; whereas to the Gnostics, and especially to 177 

the Cerinthians, it was most pertinent ; forasmuch as all 

the Gnostics, of whatever denomination they were, did in 

reality deny the true nativity, passion and resurrection of 

Jesus Christ, although not all in the same way. This is 

a learned observation of Irenseus, who was a most careful 

investigator of the doctrine of the Gnostics, (book iii. chap. 

11 ;) where, after shewing how the Apostle John, in the very 

beginning of his Gospel, glances at the Cerinthians and the 

Nicolaitans, (we shall quote the passage a little further on,) 

he proceeds presently to those words in chap. i. 14, and 

demonstrates, that neither the Cerinthians nor any other 

sect of the Gnostics, did sincerely acknowledge the incarna 

tion, the passion, or the resurrection of Jesus Christ : these 

are his words 1 ; " But according to them, neither was the 

Word made flesh, nor Christ, nor the Saviour, who was 2 [i. e . out 

made of them all 2 . For they maintain that the Word and 

Christ did not even come into this world [at all] ; and again, all the 
that the Saviour was neither incarnate, nor suffered ; but ip 2 . 6. 
that He descended like a dove upon that Jesus who had P- 12 -1 
been made according to the dispensation 3 ; and having de- si ^ x on( J spo ~ 
clared 4 the unknown Father, ascended again into the pie- [434] 

[Cf. iii. 16. 

1 Secundum autem illos,neque Ver- Salvatorem vero non incarnatum, ne- ].p.204; 
bum caro factum est, neque Christus, que passum ; descendisse autem quasi an( j j y_ 2. 
neque qui ex omnibus factus est, Salva- columbam in eum Jesum, qui factus es- p t 33 j 
tor. Etenim Verbum et Christum nee set ex dispositione, et cum annuncias- 4 

advenisse in hunc mundum volunt ; set incognitum Patrem, iterum ascen- agset 


378 Gnostics all agreed in demjing the real Incarnation. 

roma. But He who was incarnate and suffered, some of 
" them affirm was that Jesus who is of the dispensation, who, 


THE SON, they say, passed through the Virgin Mary, as water through 
a tube ; others, however, that He [who suffered] was the Son 
of the Demiurge, upon whom that Jesus descended, who is 
of the dispensation ; others again say, that Jesus was indeed 
born of Joseph and Mary, and that upon Him Christ de 
scended who is from above, being without flesh and in 
capable of suffering. According, however, to no view enter 
tained by these heretics was the Word of God made flesh. 

i regulas, For if one carefully search into the theories l of them all, 

01 1*20 he wil1 find tnat there is introcluced a Word of God, and 
3. p. 93.] a Christ, that is on high, without flesh and incapable of 
suffering. For some of them think that He was manifested 
8 quemad- as transfigured into the form of man 2 , but say that He was 
hominem ne i tner ^ orn nor incarnate; whereas others suppose that 
transfigu- He did not even assume the form of man, but descended as 
a dove upon that Jesus who was born of Mary. The Lord s 
disciple, therefore, shewing that they are all false witnesses, 
says, And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us/ J 
Thus Irenseus : respecting the Cerinthians, however, Philas- 
trius, Epiphanius, and Augustine, state this as their pecu 
liar tenet, that they taught, "that even Jesus had not yet 
3 aliquando. risen [from the dead,] but would rise at some future time 3 " 
that is, as I imagine, when the millennium of the reign on 
earth, of which they dreamt, was about to begin. To this 
you may add, that those words of Ignatius, "that ye fall 
not into the snares of vainglory," seem altogether to refer 
to the Gnostics ; for they were the slaves of vainglory, in- 

disse in pleroma. Incarnatum autem carne et impassibilis ab omnibus illis 

et passum quidam quidem eum, qui ex inducitur Dei verbum, et qui est in 

dispositione sit, dicunt Jesum, quern superioribus Christus. Alii enim pu- 

per Mariam dicunt pertransisse, quasi taut manifestatum eum, quemadmo- 

aquam per tubum ; alii vero Demiurgi dum hominem transfiguratum ; neque 

Filium, in quern descendisse eum Je- autem natum, neque incarnatum di- 

sum qui ex dispositione sit; alii rur- cunt ilium; alii vero neque figuram 

sum Jesum quidem ex Joseph et Maria eum assumpsisse hominis, sed quem- 

natum dicunt, et in huric descendisse admodum columbam descendisse in 

Christum, qui de superioribus sit, sine eum Jesum, qui natus est ex Maria, 

carne impassibilern existentem. Se- Omnes igitur illos falsos testes osten- 

cundum autem nullam sententiam hae- dens discipulus Domini ait, Et Verbum 

reticorum Verbum Dei caro factum est. caro factum est, et inhabitavit in nobis. 

Si enim quis regulas ipsorum omnium Pag. 257, 258. edit. Feuard. [p. 

perscrutetur, inveniet quoniam sine 188.] 

How far the charge ofjudaizing attached to the Cerinthians. 379 

asmuch as they wished, by reason of their marvellous theo- BOOK 
ries about aeons, to be thought more accomplished 1 than the 6, 7.* 
rest; and despised other Christians as more unlearned^; and IGNATIUS. 
hence they took to themselves the name of Gnostics. Thus l eruditi- 
far, I believe, all is clear. s ru diores. 

7. But what, you will ask, is to be said of the Judaism, with [485] 
which Ignatius reproaches the heretics of whom he is speak 
ing throughout the whole passage ? Was not this the peculiar 
mark of the Ebionites, or the Nazarenes ? Surely this mark 
does not fit the Gnostics ? My answer is, it does altogether ; 
for the Cerinthian Gnostics, although, as it seems, they did 
not in reality hold the law and the rites of the Jews in much 
esteem, and even secretly entertained unworthy notions of 
the author of the law; still, to avoid the cross, they judaized 
with the Jews, so long as the power of the Jews in any de 
gree continued, and was the occasion of most severe perse 
cutions every where against the Christians ; that is, until the 
final destruction of the Jews under Adrian, at which period 
the remnant of the Jews were brought into extreme odium 
and contempt amongst all people, through the influence of 
that emperor, who, not without reason, was most inveterate 3 3 infensis- 
against them. At any rate, Epiphanius on Heresies, 28, 
Philastrius on Cerinthus, and Augustine on Heresies, c. 8, 
expressly assert, that the Cerinthians taught "that it was 
necessary to be circumcised, and to keep the law of Moses." 
But Epiphanius, in the passage referred to, expressly notes 
that Cerinthus, whilst he himself observed 4 the law, was so 4 coleret. 
far from worshipping the angel or lawgiver of the Jews, that 
he rather said m that he was evil, and abhorred him ; although 
he did not dare to teach and profess this openly, as Marcion 
afterwards did. It follows, then, that Cerinthus, as we have 
just now observed, did not judaize from his heart; but pre 
tended a zeal for the law of Moses only for his own ad 
vantage, in order to ingratiate himself with the Jews, and 
to escape the persecutions which they raised. Hence most 
of the Cerinthians, although they enjoined circumcision on [486] 
others, yet remained uncircumcised themselves ; and hence 

"yap rbv v6^ov SeScoK^ra OVK rbv ayaObv v6fj.ov SeSw/cei/ ; Epiphan. 
ayaQov, ov rep i/cfyicy TreiQtffOat So/ce?, 8rj- Hasres. 28. [p. 111.] 
A.of 8e #rt <ws ayaQy. irws oi>v 6 


380 The Judaizing of the Cerinthians shewn ; their devotion 

Ignatius, in his epistle to the Philadelphians, glances at 
them in these most remarkable words"; "If any one ex- 
p 0ulK li Judaism unto you, hearken not unto him, for it is 
better to hear Christianity from one who is circumcised, than 
Judaism from one who is uncircumcised." It is, I mean, 
clear from these words, that at the period at which fliis 
epistle was written, (so that you may recognise its antiquity 
to be such as agrees with the age of Ignatius,) there were 
some who, although they were themselves uncircumcised, 
yet professed the Jewish religion, and persuaded others to 
adopt it. And it is of these, as it appears to me, that our 
Lord Himself also speaks, in the epistle which He sent to 
the same Philadelphians, through John, the teacher of Ig 
natius, Rev. iii. 9, where mention is made of those "who 
say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie." See likewise 
Rev. ii. 9. In both passages these men are called, not Jews, 
but the synagogue of Satan ; and that because, whilst they 
professed to worship the God of Israel and of the law, they 
did nevertheless, by the instigation of Satan, in reality de 
test and blaspheme that same God. But who were these 
persons ? The Ebionites ? certainly not ; for all the Ebion- 
ites were circumcised, and most religiously observed all the 
law of Moses. It follows that they are the Cerinthian Gnos 
tics whom Ignatius points at in these words, concerning 
whom also he is evidently treating in the words immediately 
preceding in the same place ; for the words which meet us 
at the very beginning of the passage plainly aim at them : 
" For many wolves, that are " (i. e. that seem to be) " trust 
worthy, do by means of wicked pleasure lead captive those 
who run in the course of God." For of Cerinthus the great 
Dionysius of Alexandria, in Eusebius, (Eccl. Hist. vii. 25,) de- 
clares that? "this was the chief article 2 of his teaching, that 
the kingdom of Christ will be on earth; and he dreamed 
that it would consist in those things which he himself, being 
a lover of the body and wholly carnal, desired, in the grati- 

n fav Se TIS 

ftfjuv, /JL)) aKovere avrov &fj.fivov yap 
tffnv irop& avSpbs Treprro/^j/ e^ofros 
XpL(rTiavL(T[ aicoveiv, r) Trapa a,Kpo- 
pvarov Iou5ai (T^(5//. [ 6. p. 31.] 

TroAAoi yap \VKOI ai6irurToi fjSovij 

Kaitfj cu%;UaA.WT/bu<n TOVS 6eoSp6fj.ovs. 
Pag. 40. [i. e. in Epist. ad Philadelph. 
2. p. 31.] 

P TOVTO [y&p] tlvcu TTJS 5t5a<r/caA as 
avrov r~b 86y/ua, tTriyfiov ecrevdai T^V 
rov XpiOTOv flaaiAeiav, Kal wv avrbs 

to evil pleasures ; doctrine of a carnal millennium. 381 

fications of the belly and of the lower appetites, that is to say, BOOK m. 
in eating and drinking, and marrying, and things whereby 7,8. 
he thought these are supplied, under a more specious name, IGNATIUS. 
in feasts and sacrifices, and the slaughter of victims." The 
same was attested long before the time of Dionysius, by a 
celebrated man, Cains the presbyter, in Eusebius, (Eccles. 
Hist. iii. 28,) where he thus speaks of Cerinthus 1 : " He in 
troduces wonderful stories to us, as though they had been 
shewn to him by angels, speaking lies, saying, that after the 
resurrection the reign of Christ is to be on earth, and that 
the flesh will inhabit Jerusalem, and again be enslaved to 
lusts and pleasures ; and being an enemy to the Scriptures 
of God wishing to mislead men, he declares that there will 
be a period of a thousand years of a marriage feast 1 ." By [488] 
this bait, it seems, of his (so to call it) Epicurean millennium, x eV yd^ 
which Ignatius justly designated " wicked 2 pleasure," this *P T7 ^* 
Cerinthus drew many disciples to him, or, as Ignatius again rjSov^. 
says, " led captive those who were running in the course of 
God." I proceed with what Ignatius writes to the Phila- 
delphians. Certainly these words also of his, which follow 
in the same place, "If any man walk after the opinion of 
others 3 [than the Church], he agrees not with the passion 3 d\\orpta. 
[of Christ] :" these words, I say, designate not Ebion, but 7 " w/ * ?< 
Cerinthus ; who, with all the Gnostics, (as has been already 
observed out of Irenseus,) did in reality deny the passion of 
Christ our Lord. 

8. I come at length to the chief point of my subject, being 
about to shew clearly, in what way those words also of Igna 
tius, in his epistle to the Magnesians, " Who is His eternal . 
Word, not having come forth from silence/ have reference 
to the doctrine of the Cerinthians. I assert, then, that Cerin 
thus entertained entirely the same view as Valentinus with 
respect to the putting forth 4 of the Word, and preceded him 4 produc- 

tione, TOW 

wpeyero (pL\oa"ct>fJ.aros &v Kal Ttdvv aap- avT(p SeSeiypevas ^ev^6/j.vos, fireurdyfi 
KiKbs, ev TOVTOIS oj/etpOTroAelV ((TecrQai heyoov, jueTa TTJV avaa Tao LV ziriyeiov 
yaa-rpbs Kal rcav virb yavrepa ir\T\<r^o- e?i>cu rb @a(ri\fiov TOV Xpiffrov Kal ird- 
vouSfTovT^ffTi ffLTiois Kal 7roTO?s Kal yd- \LV ivtfvpitUS Kal r)8ovcus eV lepovtra- 
/uots, Kal Si &v V(f)r]i^6Tpov ravra ef-ridfj \fyfj. TTJV ffdpita Tru\irevofJ.vrjv SovXtvetV 
Tropie iarQai, eopraTs Kal OvffiaLs Kal t epei- Kal exQpbs virdpxuv TCUS ypatyais TOV 
uv crcpayats. [E. H. vii. 25, and iii. eov, xiXtovraeTLas eV yd/j.Cf> 
28.] fopTrjs, deAwj/ irXavav, \e*yet yi 

^ TfpaToAoyias r\^iv us 8i ayytXwv [Ibid. iii. 28. paul. sup.] 




2 fabrica- 

the Demil 

3 [or, "is 

382 The doctrines that Cerinthus taught, as recorded by 

in that heresy : which also I prove from a very express testi- 
mony of Irenseus, iii. ll r , where the most learned father, 
being about to shew how the words of John, in the begin 
ning of his Gospel, strike at the vain inventions of the 
Gnostics, especially of the Nicolaitans and the Cerinthians, 
writes thus; "John, the Lord s disciple, in declaring this 
faith, wishing, by means of the declaration of the Gospel, to 
take away that error, the seed of which had been sown 
among men by Cerinthus, and even much earlier by those 
who are called Nicolaitans, who are a section 1 of that which 
i g falsely called knowledge; in order to confound them, and 
convince men that there is one God, who made all things 
through His Word ; and not, as they assert, that the Creator 
is one, and the Father of the Lord another ; and that the 
g on o f t ne Creator 2 is one, and Christ who is from above is 
another, who also continued impassible, when He descended 
U pon Jesus the Son of the Creator 11 , and again flew back 
into His own pleroma; and THAT THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN S HATH 


ONLY-BEGOTTEN ; and that the creation, to which we belong 4 , 
was not made by the first God, but by some power placed 
verv f ar below, and cut off from all communication with those 
things which are invisible, and incapable of being named : 
the disciple of the Lord, therefore, wishing to set aside 6 all 
suc h [dogmas] and to establish in the Church the rule of truth, 

yp tyeiv, 
le re 1 

r Hanc fidem annuntians Joannes 
Domini discipulus, volens per Evan- 
gelii annuntiationem auferre eum, qui 
aCerintho inseminatus erat hominibus, 
errorem, et multo prius ab his qui di- 
cuntur Nicolaitae, qui sunt vulsio ejus 
quae falso cognominatur scientia, ut 
confunderet eos, et suaderet, quoniam 
unus Deus, qui omnia fecit per Ver- 
bum suum ; et non, quemadmodum 
illi dicunt, alterum quidem Fabricato- 
rem, alium autem Patrem Domini ; et 
alium quidem Fabricator] s Filium, al- 
terum vero de superioribus Christum, 
quern et impassibilem perseverasse, de- 
scendentem in Jesum Filium Fabrica- 
toris, et iterum revolasse in suum pie- 
roma ; et initium quidem esse mono- 
geni [1. monogenem] \\ logon autern ve- 
rum filium unigeniti ; et earn condi- 
tionem, quae est secundum nos, non a 
primo Deo factam, sed a virtute aliqua 

valde deorsum subjecta, et abscissa ab 
eorum communicatione, quae sunt in- 
visibilia et innominabilia. Omnia igi- 
tur talia circumscribere volens disci- 
pulus Domini, et regulam veritatis 
constituere in ecclesia, quia est unus 
Deus omnipotens, qui per Verbum 
suum omnia fecit, et visibilia et invisi- 
bilia ; significans quoque, quoniam per 
Verbum, per quod Deus perfecit con- 
ditionem, in hoc et salutem his qui in 
conditione sunt praestitit hominibus; 
sic inchoavit in ea quae est secundum 
evangelium doctrina, In principle erat 
Verbum, 8fc, Pag. 257. edit. Feuard. 
[p. 188.] 

* Read monogenem. GRABE. [This 
is also the reading of the Benedictine 
edition. B. Thaf is, "the Orily-be- 
gotten is the beginning;" Bishop Bull 
argues from the other reading.] 

Irenaus, agree with those of Valentinus ; of Silence. 383 

that there is one God Almighty, who made all things through BOOK m. 
His Word, both visible and invisible ; signifying likewise that, | H gf0.* 
through the Word, through whom God perfected the creation, I GNATIUS . 
in Him He also gave salvation to mankind, who are included 
in the creation: thus he began in that doctrine which is 
according to the Gospel, In the beginning was the Word/ " 
&c. Here, reader, observe the agreement of the Cerinthians 
with the Yalentinians ; in the first place, the Cerinthians, no 
less than the Valentinians, set many powers, many beings 
"invisible" and "incapable of being named," i. e. many 
seons, between the first God and the Creator of the world. 
Secondly, they both alike classed the Word among their 
seons. Furthermore, they both derived the Word not im 
mediately from the first God, but from the Only-begotten, 
or Mind 1 . Lastly, they both alike denied the eternity of the * Mono- 
Word. In the case of the Valentinians this is certain, whilst j^ e { 
of the Cerinthians it is here expressly asserted by Irenseus 
that they attributed a beginning even to the Only- begotten, 
whom they called the Father of the Word. 

9. As for Silence, who would not readily believe (even [490] 
without distinct testimony), that, as the Cerinthians, along 
with the Valentinians, deduced their Logos from the Only- 
begotten, so they also derived their Only-begotten from 
Silence? especially when Irenseus expressly declares that 
Cerinthus attributed a beginning even to the Only-begotten 
Himself; for hence it follows, according to Cerinthus, that 
some other seon, or rather aeons, preceded the Only-be 
gotten. Now who should those a3ons be, but Depth 2 and 2 Bythus. 
Silence 3 . It is at any rate evident (whatever the Observer 3 Sige. 
on Pearson put forward on the contrary) that the Only- 
begotten had this appellation, Only-begotten, given to Him 
by all the Gnostics, who classed Him among their seons, on 
this account, that He alone was begotten of the first pair 4 * <rvvyta. 
of them all, immediately and without intervening beings. 
Then, this very passage of the author of the epistle to the 
Magnesians, (whom from other sources the learned have 
proved by the strongest arguments to be none other than 
Ignatius himself,) may suffice in the estimation of fair 
judges, to prove this point. For by these very words of his, 
"Who is His eternal Word, not having come forth from 


1 nomina- 

2 produc- 
tus fuit. 


ry 0-1777. 

384 Silence preceding the Word; would be taught by Cerinthus. 

Silence/ we have already shewn, as I think, clearly enough, 
that it is not the Valentinians at all, but altogether the 
Cerinthians, who are glanced at 1 . Some other, then, be 
sides Valentinus taught, and specifically Cerinthus, who was 
more ancient than Valentinus, that the Word came forth 
from Silence. Besides, the Gnostics, who placed the Word 
among their later seons and denied His eternity, (as Ire- 
nseus, in the passage we have quoted above, expressly testifies 
that the Cerinthians did,) must all be regarded as teaching, 
by necessary consequence, that the Word proceeded from Si 
lence. For what else, I ask, was the Word, in the judgment 
of all the Gnostics, than the vocal word of GOD ? Now if the 
vocal word* of God did not come into existence, nor was put 
forth 2 till after infinite ages now passed, it must follow, that 
during those infinite ages now passed, God was silent ; in 
other words, Silence was with God ; and at last the vocal 
word of God did, as it were, burst forth. This, however, 
is the very thing which Ignatius rejects, when he denies 
that " the Word came forth from Silence." Whosoever will 
examine this argument more closely and attentively, will 
readily see that it is irrefragable. Lastly, that the Cerin 
thians reckoned both Depth and Silence amongst their seons, 
is expressly declared by Gregory Nazianzeu, an author of 
very great credit, Orat. xxm. u : " There was a time," he 
says, "when we enjoyed quiet from heresies, when Simons 
and Marcions, and Valentinus s, and Basilides s and Cerdons, 
CERINTHUS S and Carpocrates s, with all their trifling and in 
vention of prodigies, when they had for a very long time cut 
in pieces the God of the Universe, and waged war for the 
good against the Creator, were engulphed, as they deserved, 
IN THEIR OWN DEPTH, and delivered over to [THEIR OWN] 
SILENCED" You observe, the Cerinthians are reckoned by 
name amongst those Gnostics who had their Depth and 
their Silence. 

10. I am ashamed to mention the cavil by which it has 

7 * See the testimony of Irenseus, book 
ii. c. 48, quoted below in 13. 

u ^v fire *ya\T}Vf]v efxofjiGV curb TCOV 
alpearecav, fjvLKa 2i/j.wts /JLZV Kal Map- 
Kioaves, Oiia\evTivoi re Tij/es Kal Baffi- 
Ae?Sat /cat Ke p&Wes, K^pu/floi re Kal 
s, Kal iraffa r/ irepl e/cetVous 

<f>\vapia re Kal Tepareia, eVl TrXe 
T^V TUIV 6\<av Qfbv re/j.6vrs, Kal virep 
rov ayaOov T< Srj/uiiovpyy 7roAe / UT)(raf- 
res, e-rreira KaTeiroOrjaav T<J> favTcav $v- 
<?, Kal TTJ (Tiyfj 7rapa5o0eWes, tivirfp ^v 
aioi>. Tom. i. p. 414. [Orat. xxv. 8. 
pp. 459, 60.] 

Nazianzen s words imply that Cerinthus held this doctrine. 385 

been attempted to elude this clear testimony of Nazianzen, as BOOK m. 
quoted by Pearson, on the part of the author of the Observa- $ H 9 AP -[0 
tions upon his Vindiciae. " There is no one," says he x , "who I GNATIUS 
does not perceive, that Gregory only meant that the here 
sies which he mentioned had at length vanished, and were 180 
causing the Church no further disturbance whatever ; and [492] 
therefore he writes, they were engulphed in Depth, and were 
delivered over to Silence/ in evident allusion to the Depth 
and Silence of Valentinus, to whom, with his followers, these 
last words of Nazianzen apply, and not to the other heretics 
whose names he mentions." It is, however, manifestly false, 
that these last words of Nazianzen apply only to the Valeiiti- 
nians. For Nazianzen, after he had mentioned by name not 
Valentinus only, but also Simon, Marcion, Basilides, Cerdon, 
and Cerinthus too, and Carpocrates, says of them all, that 
they were engulphed together with all their trifles and in 
ventions of prodigies, in THEIR OWN (observe the expression 
THEIR OWN) Depth, and delivered over to Silence; an allusion 
which would be simply absurd and utterly unworthy of this 
very elegant writer, had not the other heretics also, whom 
he named, had their Depth and Silence as well as Valentinus. 
Besides, if Nazianzen had only meant that the heretics he 
mentions had at length vanished, without any allusion to the 
Depth and the Silence, which formed a part of the theories 
of them all, why, I ask, does he not speak in the like man 
ner of the other heretics, whom he enumerates in the same 
passage? Why does he not place them also in the same 
category (so to speak) with Simon, Valentinus, Basilides, 
Cerinthus, &c. ? For these words immediately follow in Na- 
zianzen y , " The evil spirit of Montanus, and the darkness of 
Manes, and the audacity, shall I call it, or the purity 1 of No- ] naeapt- 
vatus, and the evil maintenance of the monarchia by Sabel- T7?s * 
lius, have given way and withdrawn." Why does he not say, 
have been delivered over to their own Depth and Silence ? The 
reason is obvious. These heretics, whom he mentions apart 
from the others, did not at all venerate Depth and Silence, 
as did the former. Nazianzen certainly did not write these [493] 

x Pag. 194. [Concerning this au- Opaavrns ^ Ka6ap6r^s, 2aeAAiou re 77 
thor see above, p. 51.] KO.K^ ffvvrjyopia TTJS fj.ovapx ia>s eie Kal 

y Moi/Tai/ou 8e rb irovripbi irvevfj.a, uTrexw/JTjaej/. [Ibid.] 
Kal rb Ma//oi) <TK<{TOS, Kal r) NauaVov 


386 Confirmed by the comments of Elias Cretensls. 

ON THE words thoughtlessly or unadvisedly, but with attention, ob- 
C NI"TY OF" servation, and more than ordinary care, attributing to each 
THE SON, several heresy its peculiar characteristics. To Simon, Mar- 
cion, Valentinus, Basilides, Cerdon, to Cerinthus also and Car- 
pocrates, whom he brings together in the first sentence, he 
ascribes their own Depth and Silence, inasmuch as they all 
in reality recognised Depth and Silence as the first pair of 
all [the seons.] How appositely Nazianzen wrote of Mon- 
tanus and of those others whom he afterwards enumerates 
separately, Elias Cretensis will shew you in his commentary 
on the passage z : Montanus," he says, " an impious and 
sacrilegious man, leading about with him a fanatical and 
prostitute woman, broke out into such a height of presump 
tion as to call her the Holy Ghost; whom this great man 
most justly designated as an evil spirit rather; inasmuch as 
a wicked and impure spirit had taken up his abode within 
her. Manes, again, maintained that matter and darkness 
were uncreate and co-eternal with God. Novatus, moreover, a 
presbyter of the Church of Rome, would not at all admit to 
penance those who had fallen into an abjuration of the faith. 
Nay, he contended that those likewise who had lapsed after 
baptism ought not to be received, when they betook them 
selves to penance ; likewise he refused to receive those who 
had married twice. This man the orthodox fathers first de 
graded, and then removed from the Church, as one who re 
jected penance, and taught that he himself was pure and 
free from guilt. Also, it has already been said of Sabellius 
in the Oration de Dogmate*, that he contracted the three 
Persons into the one Person of the Father, and did not 
statuebat. maintain 1 a unity of the Godhead in three Persons." Thus 
[494] Elias. As therefore, in the latter passage, Nazianzen rightly 
attributes to Montanus his own evil spirit, to Manes his 
darkness, to Novatus his feigned purity, and lastly, to Sa- 
malam. bellius his false 2 [doctrine of the] monarchy ; so does he no 
less appositely assign their own Depth and Silence to Si 
mon, Marcion, Valentinus, Cerinthus, and the other heretics, 
whom he had in the preceding clause combined in one group. 
11. But the chief reason (if I mistake not) which induced 

z Tom. ii. col. 851. [Appended to 1630. See p. 396, note y.j 
the works of S. Greg. Naz. ed. Paris. [Orat. xxi. 13. p. 393.] 

Marcion held the same doctrine about jEons as Valentmus. 387 

the author of the Observations to contend that Nazianzen s BOOK m. 
last words, "were delivered over to their own Depth and 

Silence," properly belonged to the Valentinians alone, and IGNATIUS. 
not to the rest of the heretics also who were named along 
with them, in opposition to the manifest mind and mean 
ing of Nazianzen himself, is this; that if these last words 
be made to apply to each of the heretics before enumerated, 
it must then be allowed that Marcion also had his Depth 
and Silence ; but the author of the Observations takes it as 
a settled point, that Marcion, at any rate, did not dream of 
Depth or Silence, nay, did not recognise any seons at all. 
This however is a mere assumption of the Observer, inas 
much as in his forty-fourth Oration 5 the same Nazianzen 
expressly attributes to the Marcionites not merely seons, 
but thirty aeons, a number equal to that which the Valen 
tinians venerated 1 . For he writes as follows in that place; ^oluemnt 
"The Hebrews honour the number seven, from the law of 
Moses, as afterwards the Pythagoreans honoured the number 
four, by which also they used to swear, and the Simonians 
and Marcionites the numbers eight, and thirty ; giving 
names to, and honouring, certain aeons corresponding to 181 
these numbers." Who can doubt that Nazianzen took this [495] 
out of some works of Marcion, or of his followers ? especially 
as similar statements respecting the Marcionites have been 
made by Elias Cretensis and Nicetas c , who wrote commen 
taries on Gregory of Nazianzum. But here the author of the 
Observations, with his usual modesty, charges both Nazian 
zen himself with want of caution, and his two commentators 
with the grossest ignorance, for having attributed to the 
Marcionites what really belonged to the Valentinians. As 
if, forsooth, the same theories could not have been held in 
common by both Marcionites and Valentinians; or as if 
Nazianzen, Elias Cretensis, and Nicetas were not aware that 
Valentinus was the first indeed who venerated thirty aeons, 
but that Marcion afterwards embraced those ravings of his. 

b T)]V e8o/ia5a Ti/j.utriv Eftpaicav TTCU- ai&vas ^TrovofJLd^ovffi Kal TifJLwffiv. 

Scs, e/c TTJS Mwvffeus J>ofj.o6f(rias, tbffirep [Orat. xli. 2. p. 732.] 
ot e TlvOayopiKol r^v TerpaKTvv vffTfpov, c [A deacon of Constantinople, who 

V 5*i Kal upKov TTeTroirjvrai, /cot T)\V by- flourished A.D. 1077. See his Coin- 

SoaSa Kal rpiaKaSa ol a-irb ^i/uLcaj^us Kal mentaries at the end of the works of 

MapKiuvos, ots 5^ Kal icrapiQ[ji.ovs rivas S. Greg. Naz. ed. 1630.] 

c c 2 

388 Silence of the ancient writers on Marcion and 

ON THE Nay, Elias Cretensis expressly informs us of this, and observes 
< NI"TY OF" that Nazianzen was cognizant of it, for in his notes on Na- 
THE SON - zianzen s thirty-third Oration, after speaking of the first og- 
doad of aeons, he goes on to write d ; "The Marcionites, how 
ever, with increased madness, reverenced the number thirty 
on account of the thirty aeons whom they used to venerate ; 
for these insane men affirmed that, out of those aeons which 
were found in the system of Simon, the Word and Life had 
in their turn produced ten more aeons; and Man and the 
Church twelve other aeons; and these added to the eight, 
whom we before enumerated, make up the number thirty. 
Their names also it would be superfluous to write, they are 
so old-womanish and contemptible. THE LIKE TO THIS DID 
[496] VALENTINUS ALSO TEACH, a point which this great man has 
made clear in his Oration against the Arians." 

12. Still the Observer will not yet yield to this great autho 
rity, nor believe that the Marcionites venerated thirty aeons. 
Why, I ask? Because, forsooth, there is a profound silence 
on this point among the more ancient heresiologists. I 
grant, indeed, that Irenaeus (who was followed by Tertullian, 
to say nothing of Epiphanius, Philastrius, Augustine, and 
^ uniores other writers on heresiology, who came after Nazianzen 1 ), 
2eno . in his first book, where he professedly recounts the tenets of 
the ancient heretics, in treating of Marcion, attributes no 
thing of this kind to him in c. 29 e ; and from this the Ob 
server boldly concludes that the great Nazianzen and his 
commentators were completely mistaken. It is the Observer 
himself, however, who is altogether wrong ; for Irenaeus, 
in the same book, in treating of Cerinthus (c. 25 f ), and of 
the Nicolaitans (c. 27s), does not mention any aeons of 
theirs, as neither does Tertullian say any thing at all about 
aeons of theirs. But is it to be concluded from this that 
neither the Cerinthians nor the Nicolaitans recognised any 
aeons ? This is absurd ; for Irenaeus himself, incidentally, 
in another passage, which we have already quoted, asserts 
the direct contrary. The fact is this ; in that first book of 
his, Irenaeus accurately describes all the doctrines of the 
Valentinians alone, (as it was against them especially that 

d Pag. 819. f [cap. 26.] 

e [cap. 27. 2. p. 106.] s [cap. 26. 3.] 

Cerinthus holding the doctrine of jEons, accounted for . 389 
he wrote, and it was they who most of all interpolated and BOOK m. 


added to the ravings of the earlier Gnostics;) but when n 13. 
he treats of the other heretics, he generally mentions only i^ NATIUS . 
the opinions which were peculiar to them. Hence the pro 
found silence (of which I spoke) in this passage respecting 
the aeons of the Nicolaitans and the Cerinthians, (who yet, 
as Irenaeus himself in another passage attests, taught that 
the Word is the Son of the Only-begotten, and, further, that 
the Only-begotten Himself had his origin from some other 
[aeon 1 ]:) because, that is, this dogma of theirs they held in 1 aliunde. 
common with other Gnostics. Nay, of Cerinthus it is parti- [497] 
cularly worthy of remark, that Irenaeus did not there mention 
even his most notorious error, touching the observance of 
the law of Moses ; no doubt for the same reason as before, 
because he shared this error along with Ebion. It is exactly 
in the same way that, when he comes to Marcion, c. 29, he 
is altogether silent about his seons, enumerating only his 
peculiar dogmas ; of which this was the chief, that that God 
who was declared by the law and the prophets, was not only 
distinct from the supreme God, and far inferior to Him, (as 
all the earlier Gnostics taught,) but was both evil, and the 
author of evil, as Irenseus states in the context. At the end 
of this chapter he also says that Marcion h (t was the only 
one who openly ventured to mutilate 2 the Scriptures, and 3 circumci- 
shamelessly, above all others, to vilify God." 

13. This, however, must be added, that Ireneeus himself 
elsewhere not obscurely intimates that Marcion so far agreed 
with Valentinus in opinion as to hold altogether the same 
view with him respecting the bringing forth 3 of the Word 3 produc- 
from Depth and Silence. For in book ii. 48. 1 the holy and tione> 
learned man thus addresses the Gnostics ; " The prophet in 
deed saith concerning Him," (i. e. the Son of God,) " Who 
shall declare His generation ? You, however, who divine 
His generation from the Father, and APPLY TO THE WORD 


h Solum manifeste ausus est circum- enarrabit ? Vos autem generationem 
cidere Scripturas, et impudorate super ejus ex Patre divinantes, et VERBI HO- 
omnes obtrectare Deum. [c. 27. 4. MINUM PER LINGUAM FACTAM PROLA- 


1 Propheta quidem ait de eo, (nem- DEI, juste detegimini a vobis ipsis, 
pe de Filio Dei,) Generationem ejus quis quod neque humana nee divina nove- 

390 Evidence that Mar don agreed with Valentinus respecting 

ON THE THE TONGUE, are of your own selves justly convicted of know- 

C NI~TY OF" in g neither human things nor divine. But being unreason- 

THE SON. a bly puffed up, you audaciously say that you know the inex- 

182 plicable mysteries of God, seeing that even the Lord Himself, 

the Son of God, allowed that the Father alone knoweth ,the 

very day and hour of the Judgment, plainly saying of that 

day and that hour knoweth no man, neither the Son, but 

[498] the Father only/ Since therefore the Son was not ashamed 

to refer the knowledge of that day to the Father, so neither 

are we ashamed k to reserve to God those things in questions 

1 majora which are too great for our measure 1 ; for no one is above 

secundum his master> If any one ^ therefore, shall say to us, < How 

2 prolatus. then was the Son put forth 2 from the Father ? we tell him, 

3 nuncupa- that that putting forth, or generation, or constitution 3 , or 
tionem. revelation, or by whatever other name one shall call 1 His 

generation, which is inexplicable, no one, neither Valentinus, 
nor Marcion, nor Saturninus, nor Basilides, &c., knoweth. 
Since therefore His generation is inexplicable, all who at- 

4 proiati- tempt to explain generations and puttings forth 4 are beside 

themselves, for they attempt to explain those things which 
are inexplicable. For, as is plain, all men know that a word 
is sent forth FROM THOUGHT AND SENSE." Here Irenseus is 
manifestly attacking [all] heretics whatsoever, who ventured 
to explain the inexplicable generation of the Word by com 
parisons taken from common-place objects; saying, for in 
stance, that the Word of God is begotten of the Father, just 
as the word of man put forth by the tongue ; and that the 
Word of God, just like the word of man, is sent forth from 

ritis. Irrationabiliter autem inflati, au- melius, quolibet, GRABE), quis nomine 

daciter inenarrabilia Dei mysteria scire vocaverit generationem ejus inenarra- 

vos dicitis ; quandoquidem et Dominus bilem existentem, nemo novit, non Va- 

ipse Filius Dei ipsum judicii diem et lentinus, non Marcion, neque Saturni- 

horam concessit scire solum Patrem, nus, neque Basilides, &c. Inenarrabilis 

manifesto dicens, De die autem ilia et itaque generatio ejus cum sit, quicum- 

hora nemo scit, neque Filius, nisi Pater que nituntur generationes et prolatio- 

solus. Si igitur scientiam diei illius nes enarrare, non sunt compotes sui, 

Filius non erubuit referre ad Patrem ; ea quae inenarrabilia sunt enarrare pro- 

neque nos erubescimus (alii melius, mittentes. Quoniam enim ex cogita- 

erubescamus), quae sunt in quaestioni- tione et sensu verbum emittitur, hoc 

bus majora secundum nos, reservare utique omnes sciunt homines. [cap. 

Deo; nemo enim super magistrum est. 28. 5. p. 157.] 

Si quis itaque nobis dixerit, Quomodo k [Another and better reading is en/ 
ergo Filius prolatus a Patre est ? dici- bescamus, " neither let us be ashamed." 
mus ei, quia prolationem istam, sive B. ] 

generationem, sive nuncupationem, sive i Another and better reading is quo- 

adapertionem, aut quomodolibet (al. libet. GRABE. 

the putting forth of the Word, and other doctrines. 39 1 

thought and sense 1 , by which words it is certain that the BOOK m. 
translator of Irenseus was accustomed to express evvoia or 
0-6777, (thought or silence,) and vovs, (mind.) But of the 

Gnostic heretics, who fell into such folly, he reflects, by l ex cogita- 
name, not only on Valentinus, Saturninus, and Basilides, ^^f* 
but on Marcion also, whom he also connects most closely 
with Valentinus; and that, doubtless, because he not only 
entertained the same opinions as Yalentinus with regard to 
the first four aeons, (as did Cerinthus, Saturninus, Basilides, 
and other Gnostics who lived before Valentinus,) but also 
embraced and reverenced 2 his whole pleroma of thirty seons, [499] 
as Gregory of Nazianzum and his learned commentators ex- 2 veneratus 
pressly testify. This, at least, is clearly gathered from this 
passage of Ireuseus, that Marcion, equally with Valentinus, 
held and taught that the Word of God is generated of the 
Father, just like a human word put forth by the tongue, 
and that the word of God is sent forth, like the word of 
man, from thought and sense, (i. e., from evvoia or cr^, 
and vovs.} For, if it were not so, no reason could be de 
vised why Irenaeus, in this censure of heretics indulging in 
this kind of dotage, should mention Marcion by name, and 
even should connect him, as I have already said, most closely 
with Valentinus. The thing speaks for itself. Moreover, 
Irenasus in another passage informs us clearly enough that 
Marcion acknowledged Depth, and his Pleroma, to be su 
perior to the Demiurge. For in book ii. c. l m (the argu 
ment of which runs thus, " that neither is the God of the 
universe external to 3 the pleroma, nor does there exist any- 3 ex tra. 
thing external to His fulness, nor yet are there two gods, 
removed from each other by an immeasurable interval," &c.) 
he thus applies to the Marcionites what he wrote especially 
against the Valentinians"; "In like manner these things," 
he says, " also applied against those who are of the school of 
Marcion. For his two gods also will be held in and bound 
ed by the immeasurable interval, which separates them one 

m Quod neque extra pleroma sit uni- n Similiter autem haec et adversus 

versorum Deus, neque extra plenitu- eos, qui sunt a Marcione, aptata sunt. 

dinem ejus esse aliquid, neque quidem Continebuntur enim et circumfinientur 

duos esse Deos, immense intervallo ab et duo dei ejus ab immenso intervallo, 

invicem distantes, &c. [p. 114. cap. i. quod separat eos ab invicem. Si autem 

Argumentum.] id, excogitandi est uecessitas secunduiu 

392 Marcion and Valentinus agreed respecting 

ON THE from the other. But if so 1 , there is a necessity for imagin- 
"HJO^OF" * n & man y gds in every direction removed from each other 
THE SON. D y an immeasurable interval, beginning from, and ending in, 
Hor, one another; and by the argument, by which they endeavour 
there is."] to shew that there is a pleroma or God above the Creatqr of 
heaven and earth, by the same may any one prove that there 
is another pleroma above the pleroma, and again another 
[500] above that ; and above Depth another ocean 2 of God ; 
2 pelagus. and that on the sides also, in like manner, there are the 
same ; and thus the thought passing off into infinity p , there 
will always be both a necessity to imagine other pleromas 
and other Depths, and never at any time to stop, continually 
seeking others, besides those that have been named [be 
fore/ ] Thus Irenseus. But how (I pray you) would these 
absurdities press on the Marcionites, how would this reason 
ing of Irenseus, By that argument, by which they endea 
vour to shew that there is a pleroma or God above the Crea 
tor of heaven and earth, by the same argument may one 
affirm that there is another pleroma above the pleroma, and 
again another above that; and above Depth another ocean 
of God ; how, I repeat, would this reasoning strike at the 
Marcionites, unless they had entertained the same opinions 
as Valentinus respecting Depth and his Pleroma, as su 
perior to the Demiurgus [or Creator] ? At any rate it is 
clearly evident from this passage of Irenseus that Marcion 
acknowledged not only Depth, but his pleroma also ; and 
likewise taught that the Demiurgus, or that God who created 
the world, existed external to the pleroma of Depth, very far 
distant and separate from Him, which certainly were the 
183 very opinions of Valentinus. And now, when Irenseus so 
evidently intimates that Marcion, equally with Valentinus, 

omnem partem multos Deos immensa tera pleromata, et alteros Bythos, et 

separatione distantes, ab invicem qui- nunquam aliquando consistere, semper 

dem inchoantes, ad invicem autem fi- quaerentes alios prseter dictos. [p. 

nientes; et ilia ratiorie, qua nituntur 114.] 

docere, super Fabricatorem cceli et ter- Read, Sic autem ad excogitandum 

rae esse aliquod pleroma aut Deum, est necessitas, &c. GRABE, [and ed. 

eadem ratione utens quisque adstruet Bened.] 

super pleroma alterum esse pleroma, P Excidente. The very learned bishop 

et super illud rursus aliud, et super observed in a marginal note that exce- 

Bythum aliud pelagus Dei ; et a late- dente is a better reading. Concerning 

ribus autem similiter eadem esse ; et this conjecture I refer the reader to my 

sic in immensum excidente sententia, own annotation on the passage of Ire- 

et semper necessitas erit excogitare al- nasus. GRABE. 

the Pleroma, and Creation by the Demiurgus. 393 

reverenced the pleroma of Depth, who will not readily be- BOOK in. 
lieve Nazianzen, when he testifies that the same Marcion ^Ys/" 
likewise agreed with Valentinus in worshipping thirty seons ? IGNATIUS. 
For this was the number of seons, inclusive of Depth himself, 
which Valentinus reckoned in the pleroma of Depth. Lastly, 
whereas Valentinus placed beneath the pleroma of Depth a 
certain middle 1 region, which he also called Vacuum, out of locum 
which arose the Demiurgus, who was placed in the lowest re- m 
gion, the same Irenseus expressly attests that Marcion agreed [501] 
with him in this point also, ii. 3 q ; "Inconsistent 2 therefore," 2 instabiiis. 
says he, " is that Depth which they hold, which is his pie- ^ ffTa " 
roma, and Marcion s God; seeing that (as they say) it has 
something below, external to itself, which they call Vacuum 
and Shade ; and this Vacuum is shewn 3 to be greater 4 than a O stendi- 
their pleroma. And it is inconsistent 5 also to say this, that tur> 
whilst it contains all things within 6 itself, the creation 7 was 5 j^^iie 
wrought by some other. For they must needs acknowledge e con ditio. 
something without form and void 8 , in which this universe was m - 
created, below the spiritual pleroma," &c. There it is plain s vacuum 
enough that the words "(as they say)" refer to all those of 
whom he was speaking in the preceding words; but there 
not only are the Valentinians spoken of, but Marcion is 
also alluded to by name. It follows that Marcion, with the 
Valentinians, asserted that there is beneath the spiritual 
pleroma something without form and void, in which this 
universe was created, and that by a creator other than the 
Most High God. The fact is, most of Marcion s doctrines 
(whatever certain of his disciples and followers may have 
laid down, who in various ways interpolated, changed, and 
in some instances openly denied his opinions) were altogether 
derived from the insanities of the earlier Gnostics, and espe 
cially of Valentinus, who lived before Marcion. The pecu 
liarity of Marcion was this, that he was the first who ven 
tured to assail with open blasphemy the Demiurgus, or Crea 
tor of the world, by saying that he was himself evil and the 

q Instabiiis igitur qui est secundum bile est autem et hoc dicere, infra se 

eos Bythus, id quod est hujus pleroma, onmia continente eo, ab altero quodam 

et Marcionis deus. Siquidem (quern- fabricatam esse conditionem. Oportet 

admodum dicunt) extra se habet sub- enim illos necessario vacuum aliquid 

jacens aliquid, quod vacuum et um- et informe confiteri, in quo fabricatum 

brain vocant ; et vacuum hoc majus est hoc quod est universum, infra spi- 

pleromate ipsorum ostenditur. Insta- ritale pleroma, &c. [p. 118.] 

391 Nazianzen s testimony as to Cerinthus thus confirmed. 

ON THE author of evil. In a word, Marcion publicly taught that there 
C NITY OF" were two S oc * s > namely, Depth, the head of the spiritual ple- 
THE SON, roma, and Demiurgus, who existed external to that pleroma ; 
and called the former the good, the latter the evil god. He 
seized a handle for this impious doctrine from his master 
[502] Cerdon, of whom Iremeus writes thus, i. 28 r ; "He taught 
that the God who was proclaimed by the law and the pro 
phets is not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ ; for that 
the one is known, but the other unknown ; and that the 
one is just, but the other good; and Marcion of Pontus 
having succeeded him, extended his school, unblushingly 1 
blas P hemin g>" [&c-] Cerdon, although he denied that the 
adamplia- God of the law and the prophets was good, yet confessed 
nam.Latl tnat He was just; whilst Marcion went further 3 , "assert- 
Vers. i n g that He was a doer of evil, a lover of wars, and incon 
stant likewise in His purpose, and inconsistent with Him 
self," as the same Irenaeus attests at the beginning of the 
following chapter. Notwithstanding, therefore, this cavil of 
the author of the Observations concerning Marcion, the great 
Nazianzen^s authority remains unshaken, when he tells us 
that both Cerinthus and the other Gnostics, prior to Valen- 
tinus, worshipped a Depth and a Silence of their own. 

14. The learned Pearson 1 , however, has proved by other, 
and those most clear, testimonies of the ancients, that Silence 
was recognised by Gnostics anterior to Valentinus amongst 
their aeons, On the other hand, no man who loves Chris 
tian candour and sincerity can read without anger and in 
dignation the answers which the author of the Observations 
makes to those passages. We will here bring forward one 
of those testimonies, and vindicate it from the exceptions of 
that sophist, and then conclude this discussion. Respecting 
Silence, as recognised by Simon himself, the leader of the 
[503] Gnostics, there is a clear testimony of Eusebius, Eccles. 
Theol. ii. 9 U . " What Marcellus," he says, " presumed to 

T e 8i8a|6 rbv virb rov v6/j.ov Kal irpo- * Malorum factorem, et bellorum 

QrjTiav /ce/ojptry/ueVof &fbv p/q e?i/ai Ila- concupiscentern, et inconstantem quo- 

rfpa TOV Kvpiou -rj/j.wi Irjcrov Xpurrov que sententia, et contrarium sibi ipsum 

rbv yap yvwpifeffOai, rbv 8e ayvwra dicens. [Ibid. These words follow 

eTvar KOI rbv fj.ev SiKaiov^bv 8e ayaObv immediately on those last quoted, com- 

virdpxew. 8mSe|a/xei/os 8e avrbv Map- pleting the sentence.] 

niwv 6 UOVTIK^S, f]v^cre rb SiSaa/ca- t Vindic. Part. Post, pp. 63 65. 

Ae?oz>, airr)pv6piaa /.Lfi/(as f^Xa.ff(pf]p.(av. u & 8e MapKf\\os er6\/J.a v-rrorWe- 

[c. 27. p. 105.] aOat, TraAat p.fv \*yan> tlvai rbv Qebv, 

A Silence co-eternal with God taught by Simon Magus. 395 

suggest, when he alleged that God existed of old, and ima- BOOK m. 
gined to himself a certain stillness, [as existing] with God, a "3*1 4 
according to that prince of the godless heretics himself, who I GNATIUS . 
framing his godless doctrines proclaimed, saying, l There was 
God and Silence/" &c. To this the Observer in the first 
place replies 31 ; "These words are not of such importance 
as Pearson supposes; for Eusebius is speaking, as Blondel 
remarks, of God, not of Depth. I am aware that the Va- 184 
lentinians, and perhaps some other heretics, deemed their 
fabulous Depth to be a god, that is, a divine person, and of 
the nobler sex ; but I do not see that they ever distinguished 
him by the name of God." Who would not be surprised 
at this reply ? For let it be granted that Eusebius is here 
speaking of God and not of Depth ; yet he is expressly speak 
ing of Silence, yea, of Silence as most intimately conjoined 
with the God of all, and co-eternal with Him. But from 
other passages we learn most distinctly, and have already 
clearly demonstrated, that Gnostics who preceded Valentinus, 
and were contemporary with Ignatius, reckoned the Word 1 * Logon* 
amongst their later seons ; which is enough for our purpose. 
For neither does the author of the epistle to the Magnesians 
say any thing expressly concerning Depth ; he only tacitly 
reprehends the heretics of his age for having declared that 
the Word came forth from Silence. But, surely, if it be 
only certain that the Gnostics who preceded Valentinus 
acknowledged Silence, and that as placed in the highest 
grade [of aeons], and if it be at the same time certain that 
[these same] Gnostics, previous to Valentinus, recognised 
the Word also amongst those of their a3ons who were placed 
in an inferior order ; who does not see that the argument [504] 
of Blondel and others is of no weight whatever, who infer 
from this mention of the Word coming forth from Silence 
by the author of the epistle to the Magnesians, that that 
epistle is not Ignatius s, on the ground, that is, that no one 
before Valentinus, who lived subsequent to the time of Igna 
tius, taught that the Word was derived from Silence ? In 
the next place, when the author of the Observations says, 

/ecu nva rjcrvxiav a/j.a ry 0e< vwoypd- Kal (Ttyr) K.T.\. [p. 114, ad calc. Eu- 
<>cof eatm, /car aurbj/ eKtivov rbis rwv seb. Demonst. Evang. ed. Par. 1628.] 
a.6 e cav cupeo-icorwj/ ap^ybi/, t>s TO. &9ea * Pag. 192. 

396 Depth held as a God by Simon Magus and Mar don. 

ON THE that, although the Valentinians regarded their fabulous 
C NITY OF" Depth as a god, that is, as a divine person and of the nobler 
THE SON, sex, still he does not find that they ever distinguished him 
by the name of God, he destroys his own argument 1 . For 
from this it follows that Eusebius in this passage is not 
speaking of Valentinus, which yet he himself immediately 
afterward affirms [that he is doing.] If the Observer were 
willing to trust Elias Cretensis who was certainly a very 
learned writer, and had also the assistance? of many records 
of the ancients, which have now perished rather than his 
own vain conjectures and guesses, which rest on no founda 
tion, he would easily learn from him [Elias] that the Gnostics 
in general indeed acknowledged Depth as the supreme prin 
ciple of all things ; but that they were not all alike accus 
tomed to distinguish him by the name of God; and that the 
frequent use of this mode of speaking was almost confined 
to Simon and Marcion. For Elias, in his Commentary on 
the twenty-third Oration of Gregory Nazianzen, after men 
tioning the various names of the Gnostics who theorised 
about Depth and Silence, then makes this remark about Si 
mon and Marcion in particular 2 ; " For certain of them used 
to say that Depth was a God, and likewise that Silence was 
a God, as Simon and Marcion. " And this I suppose was the 
cause why Irenseus, in the passage which we have already 
cited out of Book ii. c. 3, after speaking of the Valentinians 
and Marcion together, has carefully observed this distinc- 
[505] tion ; " Inconsistent, therefore, is the Depth which they hold, 
(i. e. the Valentinians), which is his pleroma, and Marcion s 
God." The Observer, however, has yet another way of es- 
cape 2 ; " Besides," he says, "let us allow that the God [men- 
tioned] in Eusebius is the same as the Depth of Irenreus, and 
of others who have written about the Gnostics ; it will not 
thence follow, that the pairing of Depth and Silence made 
one of the figments of those Gnostics who were earlier than 
Valentinus : for that prince of impious heretics [of whom 
Eusebius speaks] will be Valentinus himself; who, accord 
ing to Blondel, was the first to dream of this pairing of 
Depth and Silence." But, besides that we have already fully 

y [Elias was metropolitan of Crete, and nourished in the year 787. Cave. B.l 
z col. 821. * 

Arianism anticipated and refuted in Gnosticism. 397 

shewn that it is not Valentinus who is treated of in this BOOK m. 
passage,, if any one doubt who it is that Eusebius designates ^ 15. 

by the leader of impious heretics, let him hear Eusebius IGNATIUS. 
explaining himself, Eccles. Hist. ii. 13 a , "We have had it 
handed down, that Simon was the first leader of all heresy ." 
Nor was this way of speaking peculiar to Eusebius. For 
among the ancient ecclesiastical writers, the leader, or prince, 
of heretics means Simon Magus b , as invariably as the prince 
of poets in profane Latin authors designates Virgil. And 
with respect to the passage of Eusebius under discussion, 
I know not in truth if any more emphatic words than the 
phrase, " according to that very prince of impious heretics," 
could have been used to designate some individual 1 heretic, 1 singula- 
who was the most notorious leader and prince of all impious 
heretics : and this, Simon certainly was, not Valentinus. 

15. I have dwelt the longer on these points, both because [506] 
I thought it worth the while in passing to illustrate this 
noble passage of Ignatius, and also principally because they 
are of great use in refuting the heresy of Arius and esta 
blishing the Nicene Faith. For from hence the Arian fana 
tics may learn their pedigree 2 , hence recognise their parents 2 prosa- 
and progenitors. The impious Gnostics were the first who pl 
separated the Word 3 from the supreme God : the Arians also 3 rlv &6- 
do the same. The Gnostics were the first among Chris- yov 
tians to deny the eternity of the Word 4 ; for they said that * rov Ad- 
Silence preceded the Word, and therefore that there was 7 u 
[a time] when the Word was not ; and the Arians say the 
same respecting the Word and Son of God, in that cele- 185 
brated saying 5 of theirs, *Hv TTOTG, ore ov/c TJV, "There was 5 effatum. 
a time when He was not." The opinion of the teachers 
of the apostolic age was altogether opposed to these insani 
ties, as is attested by Ignatius, a most ample witness ; for in 
opposition to the Cerinthians, Ignatius the disciple of the 
Apostles, and who was appointed by the Apostles themselves 
bishop of Antioch, where the name of Christians first origi 
nated taught that Christ, the Son of God, is the Word of 
the Most High God Himself, not begotten by any inferior 

a 7rc<r?js /J.6V olv apxyybv alpeffews b See Irenaeus, i. 20 and 30. [c. 23. 
evfo-Qai rbv 2^/xwi/a Trope/ Arj- 2 and 28.] and Constit. Apostol. vi. 7. 
. E. H. ii. 13. 

398 Passages from Irenceus shewing that Arian views were 

ON THE scon ; moreover, also, " the Eternal Word " of the supreme 

C NIT E Y T OF" God Himself, " not having come forth from Silence/ the 

THE SON. Eternal Word, whom no Silence preceded, who never was 

not, who was coeval with God the Father Himself. So also 

Irena3us, the hearer and disciple of Polycarp, who was the 

1 sym- fellow disciple 1 of Ignatius, censures this in Cerinthus and 
mystae. ^ Nicolaitans, that they attributed a beginning to the 

Only-begotten 6 Himself, whom they called the Father of 
the Word : and what is more, he asserts, as we have already 
shewn, that the Apostle John expressly impugns this heresy 
[507] of theirs in the opening of his Gospel. The same Irenseus 
throughout vehemently attacks other Gnostics, who suc 
ceeded Cerinthus, on account of the same heresy. I shall 
here only quote one or two of the more remarkable passages 
of this kind. In book ii. c. 18 d , the bishop and martyr of 
Lyons writes as follows of the generation of the Word, in 
opposition to the Valentinians and such as held with them ; 

2 Nu, sive " For from Him," (i. e. from Mind, or the Only-begotten 2 ,) 

nogene. (( ^^ ^ ^^ Logos and Zoe, (Word and Life,) the creators 
of this pleroma, were sent forth; both understanding this 
sending forth of Logos, that is, of the Word, from what 
happens in the case of men; and making conjectures con 
trary to God, as though they were discovering some great 
matter in that which they say, that Word was sent forth 
from Mind; whereas all of course know that in regard of 
men indeed this is said consistently ; but in regard of Him 
who is God over all, seeing that He is all Mind and all 

3 A<tyos, Word 3 , as we have said before, and has not in Himself any 

4 [or, "any other thing earlier or later, or any other thing anterior 4 , 
thing of ^ but ever continues wholly equal, and alike, and one, it fol- 

5 or( ji n a_ l ws that no such sending forth in this order 5 will follow 6 ." 

tionis, q. d. 

succession. c Monogeni ipsi. [The words are addivinantes adversus Deum, quasi ali- 

given] according to the reading of the quid magnum adinvenientes in eo quod 

edition of Feuardentius, although in dicunt, a Nu esse emissum Logon ; 

our own edition, p. 218. col. 1. line 21, quod quidem omnes videlicet sciunt, 

the genuine reading, monogenem, is quoniam in hominibus quidem conse- 

found. GRABE. [And such is the quenter dicatur; in eo autem qui sit 

reading of the Benedictine edition j see super omnes Deus, totus Nus et totus 

above, p. 382. B.] Logos cum sit, queinadmodum prae- 

d Ab hoc enim (nempe a Nu, sive diximus, et nee aliud antiquius nee 

Monogene) Logon et Zoen fabricatores posterius, aut aliud anterius [ed. Bene- 

hujus pleromatis dicunt emissos ; et diet. alterius~\ habente in se, sed toto 

Logi, id est, Verbi, quidem emissionem aequali et simili et uno perseverante, 

ab hominum affectione accipientes, et jam non talis hujus ordinationis se- 

entertained by the Gnostics and denied by Catholics. 399 

And after a few words he censures those " who apply to the BOOK m. 
eternal Word of God, the putting forth lf of the uttered 2 cw ^ 
word of men, attributing to Him both a beginning on being IGNATIUS. 
put forth 3 , and a production 4 , just as to a word of their * latkmem. 
own. And in what respect" (he asks) "will the Word of ^^ 
God, nay, rather God Himself, since He is the Word 3 , dif- 3 proiatio- 
fer from the word of men, if He had the same order 6 and 
sending forth [in the mode] of [His] generation?" You 5 
observe, reader, that Irenseus expressly teaches here, that 6 ordina- 
in God there is nothing earlier or later, and, moreover, tl( 
that He sharply rebukes the Gnostics, for having applied 
the putting forth of the uttered word of men (Lationem 
prolativi hominum verbi, thus did his faithful but unclas- 
sical translator turn the Greek of Irenaeus g ) to the eter 
nal Word of God, attributing to Him a beginning of pro- [508] 
duction, just as they do to a word of their own. And to 
this we have a parallel passage in chap. 47. of the same 
book, near the end h , where Irenseus thus addresses the Gnos 
tics ; " But this blindness and folly of yours proceeds from 
this, that you make no reserve 7 for God, but wish to set 7 nihil Deo 
forth the nativities and puttings forth both of God Him- reservetis - 
self and of His Thought 8 and Word and Life, and Christ; 8 Ennceaj. 
and that, taking [the idea of] them from no other source 
than from what happens in the case of men; and you do 
not perceive, how that in a human being indeed, who is 
a compound animal, it is allowable, as we have already re 
marked, to speak in this way of the mind 9 , and thought 10 of 9 sensus 
man ; and that from mind [proceeds] thought, from thought ~Z 

quetur [al. sequitur~\ emissio .... [de- lius conjecture, that St. Irenaeus wrote, 

centiora autem magis quam hi] qui ot T^V (popav TOV rwv avQp&iruiv \6yov 

lationem [generationem ed. Benedict.] irpofyopiKov avacpepovo-iv fls rbv atSiov 

prolativi hominum verbi transferunt in TOV 0eou \6^ov.~\ 

Dei aeternum Verbum, et prolationis h Haec autem caecitas et stultilo- 
initium donantes et genesin, quemad- quium inde provenit vobis, quod nihil 
modum et suo verbo. Et in quo dis- Deo reservetis; sed et ipsius Dei, et 
tabit Dei Verbum, imo magis ipse Ennoeae ejus, et Verbi, et Vitae, et 
Deus, cum sit Verbum, a verbo homi- Christi nativitates et prolationes an 
num, si eandem habuerit ordinationem nuntiare vultis ; et has non aliunde 
et emissionem generationis ? [c. 13. 8. accipientes, sed ex affectione homi- 
p. 131.] num.; et non intelligitis, quia in ho- 

e Sequetur. Another reading is se- mine quidern, qui est coinpositum ani- 

quitur. B.] mal, capit hujusmodi dicere, sicut prae- 

f [Lationem. The Benedictine edi- diximus, sensum hominis et ennceam 

tion reads generationem. B.] hominis; et quia ex sensu enncea, de 

s [Bp. Bull probably refers to Bil- enncea autem enthymesis, de enthy- 

400 Irenaus contrasts the Divine Word, and the word of man. 


1 enthy- 

2 verbum. 

3 subminis- 



4 Verbum. 

conception l , and from conception a word ; (but what word ? 
for among the Greeks the word (\6yos), which is the primary 
principle which thinks,, is one thing, the instrument through 
which that \6yos is uttered, is another ;) and that sometimes 
a man is still and silent, at other times speaks and acts. But 
whereas God is all Mind, all Reason, and all operative 
Spirit, and all Light, and always the same, and existing in 
the like state, (as both it is profitable for us to conceive con 
cerning God, and as we are taught out of the Scriptures,) it 
is not therefore becoming towards Him [for us to suppose] 
that such affections and divisions will follow in His case. For 
in men the tongue, inasmuch as it is of flesh, is not suffi 
cient to minister to the rapidity of the mind, on account of 
its spiritual nature; whence our [mental] word 2 is choked 1 
within, and brought forth not all at once, as it is conceived 
by the mind, but in parts, according as the tongue is able to 
minister 3 to it." In these words, whilst refuting the dreams 
of the Gnostics respecting the generation of the Son, Irenseus 
notices two differences especially between the putting forth 
of the divine "Word, and that of man. In the first place, the 
word of man is preceded by silence, that is to say, man is 
first silent, then speaks ; neither is the word of man co 
existent with his internal conception ; but concerning God 
we must have a far different philosophy : since He is pure 
Mind, always the same, and existing in the like state, nei 
ther is He the subject of affections and divisions of this 
kind consequently He is not first silent and then speaks ; 
but His Word is co-eternal with Himself. This was just 
the meaning of Ignatius, when, glancing at the Cerinthian 
Gnostics, he says of Christ, " who is His eternal Word 4 , 
not having come forth from Silence." In the next place, 
the word of man is not brought forth once for all 5 , but im- 

mesi autem Logos ; (quern autem Lo 
gon? aliud enim est secundum Grae- 
cos Logos, quod est principale quod 
excogitat ; aliud organum, per quod 
emittitur Logos;) et aliquando quidem 
quiescere et tacere hominem, aliquando 
autem loqui et operari. Deus autem 
cum sit totus mens, totus ratio, et to- 
tus Spiritus operans, et totus lux, et 
semper idem et similiter existens, sicut 
et utile est nobis sapere de Deo, et 
sicut ex Scripturis discimus, non jam 

hujusmodi affectus et divisiones decen- 
ter erga eum subsequentur. Velocitati 
enim sensus hominum propter spiritale 
ejus non sufficit lingua deservire, quip- 
pe carnalis existens ; unde et intus suf- 
focatur verbum nostrum, et profertur 
non de semel, sicut conceptum est a 
sensu ; sed per partes secundum quod 
lingua subministrare praevalet. [c. 28. 
4. p. 157.] 

1 Suffocatur, others read suffugatur. 

Arius condemned by anticipation in the Apostolic Church. 401 

perfectly and by parts ; whereas from the perfect God there BOOK m. 
proceeds no other than a perfect Word, and that, so to say, f^J iJ 
in the one moment of eternity. IGNATIUS 

16. This infamous parentage of the Arian heresy was more 
over perceived by the great Athanasius, who also often up 
braided the Arians with it. Thus in his fourth Oration 
against the Arians k , he censures them as " emulating the 
doctrines of Valentinus." And shortly afterwards 1 he exe 
crates them for disjoining the Son from the Father, and for 
saying that He is not the Word of His Father, but rather a 
creature, in these words ; c( May the impiety of Valentinus 
perish together with you m ." Now what he designates the 
impiety of Valentinus we have already clearly shewn to have [510] 
been common to that heretic with other Gnostics, who were 
anterior to him, and even coeval with the Apostles them 
selves. The question, then, whether the faith of the Nicene 
fathers or of Arius is to be held, will issue at last in this ; 
Whether the doctrine of the Apostles is to be preferred to 
the inventions of those impious Gnostics, who troubled the 
Apostolic churches, or not ? Now I suppose that no Chris 
tian will long deliberate which party he ought in this case to 
follow. In a word, from what we have thus far discussed, 
it is plain that the question respecting the true godhead 
and eternity of the Word, which was in dispute between 
the fathers of Nicsea and Arius, was the subject of contro 
versy even in the primitive Church, yea, in the Apostolic 
age itself; that is to say, between the Gnostics, the most 
wicked of men, and the Catholics, who adhered consistently 
to the doctrine of the Apostles ; the former maintaining 
the cause of Arius, (to the eternal infamy 1 of that heretic l honorem, 
be it spoken) ; the latter strenuously defending the faith of t ironice -] 

k TO. OvaXevrivov fa\u>ffavres. p. yevels efyrj/ce T$ Xpi(TT$ 6 Se Kap- 

515. [Orat. iii. 60, 64. vol. i. pp. 608, TroKpdr-rjs ayyf\ovs TOV K6<r/j.ov 817- 

613.] fj.iovpyovs elfcu tyriai "They will be 

1 ^ cure/Beta OvaXfvrivov <rvv vfuv eft? put to shame as emulating and utter- 

fls cnrdiXfiav. p. 516. [65. p. 614.] ing the views of Valentinus and Car- 

And likewise in Orat. ii. contra pocrates, and the other heretics ; of 

Arianos, torn. i. p. 179. edit. Com- whom the former declared the angels 

melin. [Orat. i. 56. vol. i. p. 461] ; to be congenerate with Christ, (6/j.oye- 

alo~x,w6r)ffoi/rat /JLtv cos T& Ou- ve?s rcf Xpiffrcf,) whilst Carpocrates 

aXevrivov /cot KapiroKpaTovs Kal T<av affirms that angels were creators of the 

atperiKoov i]\ovi>Tfs Kal fyQty- world." GRABE. 
wv o ntv rovs ayye\ovs 6/j.o- 


402 Justin Martyr : passage from his Apology 

ON THE Nicsea. At their own peril then, let the Arians follow 
C N O I~TY T OF~ these leaders of theirs; we will be content with the faith of 
THE SON - the Apostles. 



Jus TIN M. 1. AFTER Ignatius comes Justin. From him the Jesuit 
Petavius could not, or at least did not, produce a single 
passage opposed to the co-eternity of the Son ; whereas we 
shall cite testimonies from his writings, such as most plainly 
establish the co-eternal existence of the Word or Son of 
God, with His Father. A remarkable passage of this kind 
occurs in that Apology which is called the first in the com- 
[511] mon editions. In it Justin" thus w r rites concerning God the 
Father and the Son ; " But to the Father of all things, inas- 

1 etrov. much as He is unbegotten, no name is given 1 , for by whatso 

ever name [any one] is called he hath one older than him 
self, who hath given him the name; but the words Father, and 

2 6v6nara. God, and Creator, and Lord, and Master, are not names 2 , but 

3 ?ps- appellations 3 derived from His benefits and His works. His 

Son, on the other hand, who alone is properly called Son, 

the Word, who before all created things was both in being 

4 [3ri,quo- with Him and begotten [of Him], when 40 in the beginning 

asmu ch He created and set in order all things through Him, is, on 

as," Bull.] the one hand called Christ, because He hath been anointed, 

and God set in order all things through Him ; a name which 

6 ayvu(rroi>. itself also includes an unknown 5 meaning; just in the same 

6 8(*a. way as the appellation God is not a name, but an idea 6 im- 

6vo(j.a Se T$ irdvruv irarpl Qerbv, expiV0at, Kal Kocrp.ri<rai TO. iruvra Si 

TI, oi>K effriv. S> yap &i/ Kal avrov rbv ebv, \fyerai wo^a. Kal avrb 

offayopevrtrai, irpfcr^vrepov -n^pi^ov ayvcaffrov ar)ua(riav $>v rp6- 

*X T)>V 06>6i/oj/ rb uvo/jLa. rb Se Trar^p, irov Kal rb Qebs irpo(Tay6pev/uLa OVK 

Kal 0ebs, Kal /CTiorrrjs, Kal K^ipios, Kal ovo/j.d eanv, oAAa Trpdy/naTOS Svirefr- 

StffirdTijs OVK 6i>6(j.aTa earti/, aAA. e /c 7-^x01; fj.(pvTOs rrj (pvtrei ra>v a.vQp&v 

TW ******* Kal TW tpyuv Trpovpyffeis. 5o|a. lyaovs 8e Kal avBpt&irov Kal ff<a- 

65e vibs iltfirov, 6 ntvos \r/Vwj KV- Typos ovopa Kal ff^aaiav e%6t. p. 44. 

piws vibs, 6 \6yos irpb ruv Trot^arcov [Apol. ii. 6. p. 92.] 
Kal awbv^ Kal ytvv^fvos, OTI [drc, [See Grabe s annotations on this 

edd.J rjiv ap^v 5i avrov irdvra e/cno-e passage. B. (In the Appendix.)] 
Xpio-rbs juev, Kara rb 

setting forth the co-eternity of the Son. 403 

planted in the nature of man, of something that cannot be BOOK m. 
expressed in language ; and on the other hand Jesus has the c ^ 2 " 
name and signification of both man and Saviour." In these JUSTIN M. 
words Justin teaches that there is properly no name belong- [512] 
ing to God the Father and the Son, but that certain appella 
tions only, derived from Their benefits and Their works, are 
assigned to them by us. And the reason which he gives for 
this assertion is this; that God the Father is unbegotten 
and eternal, and that the Son is co- existent with Him as His 
Word, and consequently that neither of Them has any one 
existing prior to Himself 1 , to give Him a name. Moreover 1 se anti- 
Justin assigns the name of Christ to His godhead, as though, qmc 
that is, the "Word and Son of God, being co-existent with God 
the Father, and begotten 2 of Him from everlasting, (as being, 2 nascens. 
that is, the eternal brightness of eternal light,) obtained the 
name Christ at the time when the Father through Him 
formed 3 and ordered all things. I do not indeed venture to 3 confor- 
maintain this etymology of the name Christ ; but I adduce m 
the passage to illustrate Justin s view respecting the di 
vine, 11 eternal, and (if I may so call it) unnameable 4 nature of Mnnomi- 
Christ. There are, however, other of the ancients who re- ni 
ferred the appellation Christ to His divine nature ; the pres 
byter Caius, for instance, in Photius, cod. 48, and Gregory 
Nazianzen in his thirty-sixth oration p . 

2. But these words of Justin, which we have cited out of 
his Apology to the emperors, will receive clearer light by 
comparing them with a remarkable passage in his Horta 
tory Address to the Greeks, where Justin, wishing to shew 
that Plato learned his [doctrine of the] TO bv (That which 
Is) from Moses, thus argues^ ; " For having heard in Egypt 
that God had said to Moses, I am He that Is/ when He 
was about to send him to the Hebrews, he knew that God 
did not declare to him any proper name of Himself. For it 
is not possible that any name can be applied in its proper 
sense 5 in the case of God ; for names are applied to designate 5 Kvpto\o- 
and distinguish their subjects, which are many and various ; 7e c 

P [Orat. xxx. 21. p. 555.] wo/J-a kavrov 6 ebs irpbs avrov ec/nj. ov- 

1 d/CTj/cod)S yap sv Aiyvirrcp T^V (bv Sev yap ovo^o. evrl eoC KvpioXoyeladat 

T(f Muvaf) elpyKevai, Eyd> etjut 6 &v, Swardr. ra yap ovo/tara els Sr/Aoxni Kal 

rpbs rovs Efipaiovs avrbv airo- Sidyvtixnv T&V viroKip.i>uv /ceTrat Trpay- 

eyt/w o ri oi Kvptov jUarcoj/, iro\\uv Kal 5ia(j>6p<aj> OI/TUV. 0e<j5 

404 Self-existence and eternity ascribed to the Word by Justin. 



ey(i) ytiCTO 

xliv. 6. 


2 rivbs 



5 nascens. 

6 6 del. 

but in the case of God there was no one previously existing 
to give a name to Him, nor did He think it needful to give a 
name to Himself, being One and Alone ; as He Himself also 
testifies by His own prophets, saying, I am God, the First, 
and I am the Last 1 , and besides Me there is no other God/ 
Wherefore, as I said before, God, in sending Moses to the 
Hebrews, made mention of no name; but by a certain parti 
ciple 2 (o wv) mystically teaches that He is the one and only 
God, saying, I am He that Is/-" And what the force of this 
participle, whereby God, who has no proper name, designated 
Himself to Moses, is, Justin afterwards most plainly states. 
For after stating that the 6 wv (He that Is) of Moses is just 
the same as the TO bv (That which Is) of Plato, he subjoins 1 ", 
" and each of these expressions is evidently suitable to the 
ever-existent God, for He alone is He that ever Is (o ael 
&v)" Now Justin himself, in his Dialogue with Trypho, ear 
nestly contends 8 that it was the Son of God who appeared 
to Moses from 3 the bush, and said, I am He that Is/ The 
fact is, That appellation of God in the book of 4 Moses, " I 
am He that Is," equally belongs to God the Father and the 
Son, as one God, saving always the distinction of Persons. 
This is admirably explained by Justin, in the passage which 
was first quoted from his Apology, in this way; God the 
Father is He that Is, as ever existing of Himself ; while the 
Son is He that Is, as being co-existent with the Father, and 
everlastingly begotten 5 of Him. But in other passages the 
Son of God is expressly called by Justin " He that ever ex 
ists 6 ," I mean in his epistle to Diognetus, near the end 1 ; 
where the Christian philosopher thus speaks concerning God 
the Son being sent into the world by God the Father ; 
" . . . . who being accounted faithful by Him, came to know 
the mysteries of the Father. For this cause He sent His 

Se oure o riflets 8vo/J.a TrpovTrrjp^ev, ovre 
avrbs favrbv ovofjLa^siv ^617 Seli/, efs 
KOI p.6vos virdp-)((av us Kal avrbs Sia 
rcav eavrov irpo^rwi/ papTvpei, Xsycav, 
70; eta TTpuros, Kal Eyai /^era ravra, 

Kttl TT\T]V ffJ.OV eta CTtpOS OVK effTl. 

Sia TOVTO TO LVVV, &s Kal irp6rpoi etyyv, 

ouSe bv6[J.a.Tos Ttj/bs 6 eta 

irpbs rovs Efipaiovs Tbv Mwuc 

rai, oAA.a 8ia rivbs /j.froxTJs eva Kal fj.6- 

vov ebi> eavrbv tlv at fjLvariKus 5t8a<r/cet. 

Ey&, yap $T\GW, dpi o &v. Orat. Pa- 
rsenet. ad Graecos, p. 19. [ 20. p. 21. J 

r e/carepoc 8e TUV etpTj/xeVwy ry del 
OVTI e^ Trpoa"t}Ktiv (paiverai. aurby yap 
tan p.6vos 6 ael &v. p. 20. [ 22. p. 

8 p. 282. [ 59. p. 1 56.] See also Apol. 
ii. pp. 95, 96. [Apol. i. 63. p. 81.] 

( o? TriffTol XoyiffQevTts UTT avrov ty- 
vucrav trarpbs / T fipia. ov X&P IV " 7re/ ~ 
\6yov, Lva. K.6fffji.(f fyavrj bs virb 

He who was from the beginning? appearing recently. 405 

Word, that He might be manifested to the world ; who having BOOK m. 
been dishonoured by the people, [and] preached by Apostles, ^^Y * 
was believed on by Gentiles. This is He who was from the J USTIN M 
beginning, who has appeared [as] recent, and being found 

u is evermore being born new in the hearts of saints. 

This is He that ever exists, being this day accounted Son." 
The real meaning of this passage, if I mistake not, is as 
follows ; The Son of God has certain new and recent nativi 
ties, as it were, (for He was first born to the world when He 
came forth from the Father for the creation of all things ; 
He was a second time born in a wonderful manner, when [515] 
He descended into the womb of the most holy Virgin, and 
was most closely united to His own creature, as Irenseus ex 
presses it x , and was brought forth of the Virgin herself into 
the light of this world ; and, lastly, He is being daily born 
in the hearts of the godly, who embrace Him by faith and 
charity;) still He was never in reality new or recent, but 
always and from everlasting hath existed as the Son of God 
the Father. For with this passage there ought by all means 
to be compared another of Justin in the Dialogue with Try- 
pho; where, on those words of God the Father [spoken] 
through David, " Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten 
Thee," he makes this comment y ; "Affirming that His gene 
ration then took place 1 unto men, from the time that the l 
knowledge of Him was about to take place 2 ." But here the 2 
reader will observe with me in passing, that in the first words 
of the passage which has been cited from the epistle to Diog- 
netus, Justin manifestly alludes to the celebrated passage of 
Paul, the last verse of 1 Tim. iii., and that he interprets it 
of the Son of God incarnate, just as modern Catholics do. 
Compare the passage of Hermas which we have quoted above, 
book ii. 2, 3 . 

3. But it is now time to wipe off the calumnies with which 
Sandius a hath aspersed this most learned writer and most 

Xaov aTi/j.a<r6els, Sia aTroffr6\uv Ktjpvx- * Unitum suo plasmati. [Iren.,lib. 
6els, vvb eQvcav 7n<rTeu0i7. OVTOS 6 air iii. c. 18. 1. p. 109.] 


6 Kaivbs (pavels, Kal . , . . tvpe- y r6r yeveffiv avrov Ae ycoi/ yivfffQai 

6els, Kal iravroTe i/eos eV ayiuv KapSiais TO?S avdpcairois, 4^6jov f} yvucris UVTOV 

yevvuHfvos. OVTOS 6 del, tn^uepoi/ vlbs e/xeA.\e yiveaQai. p. 316. [ S8. p. 186.] 

\oyi<rQeis, [ 11. p. 239.] [p. 90, note t.] 

u [Some word is lost here.] a Enucl. Hist. Eccles., p. 77. 

406 Sandius s objections ; from treatises known to be spurious. 
ON THE holy martyr. He says that Justin taught "that there was 

THE SON, which/ he says, what comes nearer to the trite saying 
of the Arians, there was a time when the Son was not? ) 
that begotten and ( made do not differ in reality, but only 
in word ; for every thing which is begotten is made, and vice 
versa." But from this and from many other indications it 
appears that Sandius has cited testimonies of the ancients 

1 spreta either without any judgment, or in despite of conscience 1 . 

conscen- ^ ^ he ^ tftken the latter statement ^ t h at < begotten 

[516] and made do not differ in reality," from the Questions and 
Answers to the Greeks b j a work, which by the consent of all 
the learned, as Sandius himself intimates, is decided not to 
be Justin s. The former words, "there was a time when 
that which is begotten did not exist," are found only in the 
Confutation of the Opinions of Aristotle, chap. 20 ; a work 
189 which by the generality of learned men is rejected as spu 
rious. See Rivet, Crit. Sac. ii. 5. But then (and this is the 
chief point) neither of these passages makes any thing for 
the purpose of Sandius ; for in both of them the author, 
whoever he was, is not treating of the Son of God, but is 
disputing against philosophers who asserted the eternity of 
the world. Against these he contends with the following 
argument, The world is begotten and made (yevvriros /cal Srj- 
jjLiovpyrjTos) for he uses these words promiscuously, accord 
ing to the custom of the Greeks therefore there was a time 
when the world was not. Certainly all this is nothing to the 
purpose. And this will be sufficient respecting Justin. 

4. Irenseus comes next ; and him indeed we but now 
heard d , together with Ignatius, openly assailing the Gnostics 
who denied the eternity of the Word. To what we there 
adduced may be added also the following clear testimonies 
of Irenseus. In book iii. c. 20 e , he thus writes respecting 
the eternal existence of the Son; "All their contradiction is 
excluded who say, If then Christ was born at that time, it 
follows that He did not exist before ; for we have shewn that 
the Son of God did not then begin to be, [who was] EVER 

n v Q Exclusa est omnis contradictio di- 

fet. Script Eccles., p. 20. centium, Si ergo tune natus est, non erat 

J tins book, c. 1. 15. [p. 398.] ergo ante Christus ; ostendimus enim, 

Irenceus on the eternal co-existence of the Son withthe Father. 407 

EXISTING with the Father ; but when He became incarnate BOOK in. 
and was made man, He summed up in Himself the length- ^II^ 
ened series 1 of mankind, procuring salvation for us [as] in I REN ^US. 
epitome." Parallel to this is what he had said in book ii. > exposi- 
chap. 55, at its conclusion f j "The Son, EVER CO-EXISTENT 
with the Father, of old and from the beginning is ever re 
vealing the Father." But Irenseus declares the eternity of 
the Son most openly in the forty-third chapter of the same 
book, where he beats down the Gnostics proud and arro 
gant profession of knowledge, by drawing a comparison be 
tween man and the Word or Son of God. We quoted the 
entire passage before g , when treating of another point, and 
therefore shall here recite only a part of it, according as our 
present purpose requires 11 ; " For thou art not," he says, 
WITH GOD, LIKE His OWN WORD ; but on account of His 
eminent goodness now receiving a beginning of created ex 
istence, thou art gradually learning from the Word the dis 
pensations of God who made theeV" This was the un 
varying doctrine of Irenseus. For I will venture to pledge 
myself that if you read over all his books with care, you will 
not find one iota opposed to the co-eternity of the Son ; I 
cannot therefore sufficiently express my wonder at the effron 
tery of Sandius and others, who have unblushingly classed 
even Irenaeus himself amongst the arianizing fathers. 

5. Clement of Alexandria must be placed next to Irenseus ; CLEMENT 
he also repeatedly and most openly declares the eternity of ALEX - 
the Son; thus in his Exhortation to the Gentiles k he says, 
" This Jesus is eternal, [being] one, the great High-Priest of 
[Him who is] one God, and also His Father." At the end 
of his P&dagogus (in a passage which we have quoted above 1 

quia non tune ccepit Filius Dei, EXIS- PROPRIUM EJUS VERBUM ; secTpropter 

TENS SEMPER apud Patrem ; sed quan- eminentera bonitatem ejus nunc ini- 

do incarnatus est et homo factus, Ion- tium facturse accipiens, sensim discis 

gam hominum expositionem in seipso a Verbo dispositiones Dei qui te fecit, 

recapitulavit, in compendio nobis salu- [c. 25, 3. p. 153.] 

tern prrestans. [c. 18. 1. p. 209.] [This passage is more fully ex- 

f SEMPER autem COEXISTENS Filius plained and defended in the Reply to 

Patri olim et ab initio semper revelat G. Clerke, 10.] 

Patrem. [c. 30, 9. p. 163.] k ai Sios OVTOS lyaovs, els 6 jueyas ap- 

S See above, book ii. ch. 5. 5. [p. xtepeus eou re evbs TOV avrov Kal Ua- 

167.] r P 6s. pp. 74, 75. [pp. 92, 93.] 

h Non enim infectus es, O homo, NE- i Book ii. ch. 6. 4. [p. 186.] 


408 Primitive hymns setting forth the co-eternity of the Son. 

ON THE in full) he says that the Father and the Son are one God, 
through Whom is eternity/ (Si ov TO del,) a statement 
ch i s n ot true, unless the Son Himself, equally with the 
Father, be eternal. Moreover at the end of the Padagogv* is 
subjoined a Hymn of St. Clement to Christ, which, although 
omitted in some manuscripts, is found in the greater num 
ber, and was certainly added by Clement himself, as is most 
evident from the concluding words of the Padagogus m . In 
this hymn, besides other divine attributes ascribed to Christ, 
His eternity also is magnificently set forth in the following 

Aoyos aevaos, Word everlasting, 

Alow cLTrXeros, Age unbounded, 

3>ws dffiiov. Light eternal. 

This hymn, however, seems to me to have been taken by 
Clement from the sacred songs used in the primitive Church, 
or, at least, to have been composed in imitation of them. 
Respecting these psalms there is a remarkable passage -of 
Caius, in Eusebius, H. E. v. 28. Artemon had shamelessly 
enough objected that the doctrine of the eternity of the Son 
was not received in the Church before the time of Victor. 
Caius, in reply, makes this statement amongst others, "All 
the psalms and songs of the brethren, written by the faithful 
from the beginning, celebrate Christ the Word of God, setting 
forth His divinity 01 ." Respecting the same hymns Pliny also, 

in a letter to Trajan, Epist., lib. x. 97, makes this statement 
from the confession of Christians who had apostatized; "And 
they affirmed that this was the sum of their fault, or error, 
that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day, before it 
2 secum was light, and to sing by course, one with another 2 , a hymn 


[519] to Christ as God." That is to say, in the very age of the 
Apostles the eternal and divine majesty of the Son used to 
be celebrated by the faithful, even in their public liturgy ; 
as also (God be praised) it is at the present day; yea, and 
will be (I certainly foretell) even to the end of the world, in 

$nu- 812.] y ov T0 {) Qfov rbv Xpiffrbv 

Ihis hymn, as every one must Xoyovvres. [Euseb. E. H. v. 28. See 

see, is to be tbrown into an anapaestic also vii. 24. p. 350 ; and 30. p 362. 

system._B.] ^ Dr Routh (ReL ^^ yol ^ p 3) 

, , ,*"W ? 0(TOi Kai yS<d aSeAc/x-Dz/ questions whether the words quoted 

ITT apxr)s virb 7rrj/ ypcKf>e?<ru,Tb Ao- are Caius s. B.J 

Other passages expressing His eternity and infinity. 409 

spite of the vain efforts to the contrary, of Socinians, Arians, BOOK m. 
and all other maintainers of what the same Caius calls the A 5%/ 
"God-denying apostasy p ." But I return to Clement. CLEM. 

6. There is a famous passage of his on the infinity and ALEX - 
eternity of the Son in the fourth book of his Stromata * ; "He 
is," he says, "beyond explanation 1 as regards the idea of each aTrape /x- 
one of His powers; and indeed, the Son is not absolutely 2 ?? TO 
one [thing] as one [thing 3 ], nor many [things] as parts 4 , but 3 * & s *. 
one [thing] as all [things 5 ], whence also He is all [things]. 4 AAO & 
For He, the same, is the cycle of all powers, rolled up and %f^ ir ^ n 
united into one [thing 6 ] ; on this account the Word is called *" 
Alpha and Omega, of whom alone the end proves to be a be 
ginning, and [who] ends again in 7 the original 8 beginning, 7 V^ 6 " 
having no interval 9 anywhere." These words, notwithstanding 
some obscure statements, yet seem to contain the following 
plain meaning; In the existence of the Son there is no inter 
val 10 ; there never was a time when He was not, nor will there 
ever be a time when He will not be; but He Himself is like 
a circle, infinite, having neither beginning nor end. But in 
Strom, vii. 1 does this same Clement most openly acknowledge 
the eternal existence of the Son; for not far from the opening 
of that book he expressly calls the Son of God, C{ the begin- [520] 
ning and the first-fruit 11 of all things that exist, without time 
and without beginning." Again, in the same book, two pages 
after, he proves that Christ the Lord is the common Saviour 
of all who are willing to be saved, from this, that neither 
want of power nor envy is a hindrance to His procuring the 
salvation of man ; not want of power, because none but the 
Father could hinder Him, whose power and will is one with 
His own; not envy, because to Him, as being impassible 
and eternal, an affection of that kind is not incident : these 
are his words 8 ; " Neither could the Lord of all ever be hin 
dered by any other, and that especially as He ministers to 

P TTJS api>v)(TiOeov airoffraa-ias. [Caius efyrjTcu ov (j.6vov rb reAos apxr) 711/6- 

apud Euseb. E. H. v. 28.] rat, Kal reAetrra -rrd\tv eirl T^V avcaQev 

q airapefj.(f)aTos Se fo~ri, TTJS Trepl e/ca- apxfyv, ovfiz/JLOv Siaffraffiv \afiuv. p. 

orrjs avrov TWV 8vvd/j.cav svvoias. Kal 537. [p. 635.] 

8)] ov yiverai arexi ws c" &? e", ouSe r rrjv &XP OJ/OV Ka ^ avapxov apxw re 

TroAAa ws fteprj 6 vlbs, aAA us irdvra eV Kal airapxyv T&V OVTOW. [p. 829.] 

evOev Kal iravra. Ku/cAoy yap 6 avrbs s ovO v<j> erepou /ccoAufleirj TTOT hv & 

iraauv TU>V Swd^cov ets er 6tAou y ueVco* -navrtov Kvpios, Kal /j.d\iaTa f^vTrrjpercav 

. 8ia TOVTO A K al fl 6 \6yos rip TOV ayaOov /cat TravroKpaTopos 


410 The writers already cited were close on the Apostolic age. 

the will of the good and Almighty Father; neither yet does 
CO-ETER- env y affect t h e Lord, who without any beginning was made 
H ESON F . impassible." Thus speaks Clement, and this was his uniform 
" teaching, nor in his genuine writings does there occur any 
thing inconsistent with it. 

7. Now when I look back upon the four witnesses who 
have been already cited, in this and in the preceding chapter, 
Ignatius, Justin, Irenseus and Clement of Alexandria, and 
when I reflect of what character and how great they were, I 
seem to myself to have sufficiently established the eternity 
of the Son by the authority of the ancients, even though 
I were not able to bring forward any thing from the re 
maining fathers in proof of our position : for Ignatius was a 
hearer of the Apostles themselves, especially of St. John, who 
seems to have been kept alive after all the other Apostles, 
by the divine counsel, that he might maintain the divinity of 
[521] Christ against the heresies that were springing up. Justin 
received the crown of martyrdom some years before Polycarp 
finished his course ; whence also in his epistle to Diognetus, 
he calls himself, as we have above observed *, " a disciple of 
the Apostles," (that is to say, of those of the lower order, the 
teachers who were appointed in the Church by the original 
Apostles themselves). Irenseus professes himself [to have 
been] a hearer of Polycarp, who also himself had derived 
his theology from St. John. Lastly, Clement of Alexandria 
gloried in the far-famed Pantsenus as his master, who, after 
Bartholomew, was the apostle of the Indians ; and who also 
himself, as certain of the ancients say, had been a disciple of 
the Apostles, and at any rate, it is certain, had lived with 
apostolic men. But God be praised, we are not reduced to 
such straits; there still remains a cloud of witnesses, and 
they catholic teachers prior to the synod of Nice, who have 
delivered in their writings the self- same doctrine respecting 
the eternity of the Son. Their evidence we shall produce 
in order. 

Hart Uarpos.^ &AA* ou5e airrfTcu rov alleged as an argument that the Epi- 

Kvplov a-naOovs avdpxws yevop.tvov (p&6- stle to Diognetus was not written hy 

vos. p. 703. [p. 832.] Justin Martyr.] 
1 i. 2. 8. [p. 52. This passage is 




1. AFTER Clement of Alexandria, the master, comes the BOOK m. 
disciple, Origen. And though he is almost the only one of CH P j m 
the Antenicene fathers whom Jerome and others have ac- ORIGEN. 
cased of the contrary error, yet does he throughout set forth 
the eternity of the Son in words clearer than the sun. Thus 
in the fifth book of his work against Celsus he calls the Wis 
dom of God, by which in this place he evidently means the 
Son of God, " u the brightness of the everlasting light." Now 
the brightness of the everlasting light must itself be ever 
lasting; and that this was what Origen actually meant by 
this simile is clear from his other writings. There is a re 
markable passage of his which Athanasius quotes in his trea 
tise on the decrees of the council of Nice x ; "If," says he, 
" the Son is an image of the invisible God, it is an invisible [526] 
image ; but I would make bold to add that, as being also a 
likeness of the Father, there is not a time when He was not. 
For when had not God, who, according to St. John, is called 
light, ( For God [says he] is light/) the brightness 1 of His l [awav- 
own glory ? that any one should presume to ascribe a begin- sJ^iTv. 
ning of existence to the Son, as if before He was not. And Heb - * 3 -J 
when did not that image of the Father s ineffable, and name 
less, and unutterable hypostasis, the express Image 2 , the 
Word, who knoweth the Father, not exist ? For let him 
who dares to say, There was a time when the Son was not, Heb - 
well understand that he is saying this also, once Wisdom 
was not, and Word 3 was not, and Life was not." A parallel 3 


passage to this from Origen is added in the same place by 

u aTravya(r/j.a (poarbs a ifiiov. p. 238. Iva roX^tras ns apx hi $<p e?/cu viov, 

[ 10. p. 584.] irporepov OVK ovros. trore 8e f) rrjs ap- 

x e^ ecrrij ei/caj// rov eou rov aopd- p-frrov ital a.Karovojj.a.(rrov Kal a^OeyKrov 

rov, aoparos ei/ccoj/. 6701; Se ro\/j.^o~as viroo~rdo-G6i)S rov Tlarpbs ftKcav, 6 ^ctpaK:- 

irpocr0et7jf &z/, OTJ /cal 6/j.ot6nf}s rvy%d- rfyp \6yos, 6 yivcaffKuv ruv Trdrepa, OVK 

v<av rov Tlarpus, OVK zariv ure OVK 1\v, 3\v ; Karavoeirdo yap 6 ro\/j.(t)^ Kal Ae- 

Tr6rf yap 6 0ebs, o Kara rbv \(advvi]V yo)v, ~f\v irorf 2x6 OVK i\v 6 vibs, 6ri epeT 

<ftws Afy6/J.evos, (6 0eos yap (pus eVrii/,) Kal rb, &o(pia TTOTC OVK tfv, Kal \6yos 

anavyaa/J.a OVK e?x T ^)s /Sias So^s ; OVK $v, Kal far) OVK l\v aAA ov 

412 Extracts from Origen in Athanasius ; Petavius objection; 

Athanasius, to the following effect; "But it is not right nor 
" witnout danger, by reason of our weakness, to deprive God, 
THE SON, so far as in us lies, of the Only-begotten Word, who ever ex- 
isteth with Him, being Wisdom, in which He rejoiced. For 
in that case He will be conceived of as not always rejoicing." 
[527] 2. Now what reply does Petavius y , most unfair alike as 
the accuser and as the judge of Origen, make to these most 
express passages ? " They are/ says he, " indeed wonderful, 
and if any other person than Athanasius had avouched that 
such passages were written by Origen, it would certainly have 
been no unreasonable suspicion that they had been an in 
terpolation in his works by some Catholics/ He then adds 
a reason for this truly wonderful assertion; "For he uses 
precisely the same arguments as those by which the ancient 
fathers were accustomed to refute the dogma of Arius, and 
that impious saying of his, rjv Trore ore OVK r)v, There was a 
time when He was not. " This reason however, is of little 
weight, and hardly worthy of a man versed in the works 
of the ancients, as Petavius was. For I have already proved 
above that the blasphemy of Arius, whereby he asserted 
that there was a time when the Word or Son of God was 
not, was first put forth by the Gnostics, who infested the 
Church even in the time of the Apostles, and whose progeny 
continued until the days of Origen, and long after. Further, 
inasmuch as the heresy of Noetus (which afterwards was 
that of Sabellius,) began to put forth its strength most of all 
in the age of Origen; it is exceedingly likely, that many 
at that time, not knowing how to avoid extremes, in their 
attempts to escape one danger, fell into the opposite ; and in 
order to avoid being obliged to acknowledge the Son to be 
the same person as the Father, with those heretics, willingly 
embraced a diametrically opposite heresy, distinguishing the 
Son from the Father in such a way as to say that He was 
alien from the substance of the Father and a mere creature, 
* aliquan- which had at a certain time 1 received a beginning of existence 
2 6 > oillc from God the Father, out of nothing 2 . Hence also other 
catholic fathers, who were contemporary with Origen, have 

fcrrlv, ouSe aKivfivvov, 8ta T^V y Trpoffexaipzv ovrw yap oi8e oet xcd- 

iav r]nu>v rb, 6aov e> rjfjuv, OTTO- pwv vorje^aeTai. torn. i. p. 277. [ 27. 

o-flat rbv ebi> rot) ael avvovros vol. i. p. 233.] 
\6you p.ovoyfvovs, aortas OVTOS, - v De Trin. i. 4. 6. 

Further evidences of Origen s belief. 413 

in their undoubted writings stated this same dictum of the BOOK m. 
Arians, in express terms 1 , and refuted it by the same argu- n/g." 
ments as Origen had used. I would especially name Dionysius ORIGEN. 
of Rome, and Dionysius of Alexandria, whose testimonies we * j n termi- 
shall adduce in their proper places. Lastly, Tertullian, who so iet. 
was earlier than Origen, if you look to his words [only], [528] 
taught the same as Arius, in his book against Hermogenes 2 , 
where he says, that "there was a time when the Son was 
not," which passage we shall examine 3 hereafter. In the 
meantime I return to Origen, who, in very many other pas 
sages, expressly professes his faith respecting the co-eternal 
existence of the Son with the Father. It may be sufficient, 
however, to add to those which we have already given, a re 
markable testimony of his on this point, which is extant in 
his first tome on John b ; where, explaining the passage of Da 
vid in the second Psalm, " Thou art My Son, this day have I 
begotten Thee," he thus speaks ; " It is said to Him by that 
God, with whom it always is to-day ; for of God there is no 
evening, nor yet, as I suppose, is there morning; but the 
time (if I may so say,) which extends along and together with 2 2 
His unoriginated and eternal life, is with Him to-day, in e 
which day the Son was begotten; there being thus found 
no beginning of His generation, as neither of that day." 
Whoever wishes to read more out of Origen on the eternity 
of the Son, should consult Pamphilus s Apology for him. 
This one thing only I will add, in conclusion, as worthy of 
observation; that Socrates, who was a man of the greatest 
integrity and well versed in the writings of Origen, expressly 
testifies that this voluminous writer 3 in his works uniformly 3 
asserted the co-eternity of the Son. For in book vii. chap. J 
6. of his Ecclesiastical History, after declaring his astonish- [529] 
ment that Timothy, a most attentive student of Origen, 
could have persisted in the Arian heresy, he gives this reason 
for his astonishment ; " Origen everywhere confesses that 
the Son is co-eternal with the Father. " 

1 [c. 3. p. 234.] efrrco, %p<Ws, f)/j.fpa 

Chap. x. 2 and 4 of this hook. eV f/ yeyevv-fiTai 6 vl6s dpxys 7ei/6<reo, < s 

b \fyerai Trpbs avrbv virb TOV eov, avrov OVTUS ovx tfyufKQltfyrfS, &s ou5e 

(jj aei e<rri rb a"f]/j.fpov OVK evi yap e<r- TTJS y/JLepas. Ed. Huet., p. 31. [ 32. 

Trepa ov, e 7& 5e yyov/uiai. 6ri ou5e vol. iv. p. 33.] 

Trpaua. aAA 3 6 a Vfji.irapfKTeivcai rfj dye- c Lpiy4vt]s avvai Siov Trai/ra^ou o/no- 

vf]T(f Kal di 5i<jj avrov fafj, Lv OVTOOS Ac^e? rbv vlbv rep Harpi. [E. H. vii. 6.] 

414 Petavim, that Origen held the eternity of things created; 

ON THE 3. But at last Petavius d endeavours to weaken these clear 
C N rT E Y T oF~ testimonies of Origen to the eternity of the Son, in this way; 
THE SON, tt These things," he says, " are indeed of force against the 
Arians and the sacrilegious formula of Arius, which asserted 
that there was a time when the Son was not ; but they do 
not amount to an affirmation of the consubstantiality. For 
Origen was of opinion that the creatures also existed from 
eternity with God ; forasmuch as otherwise the Father could 
not have been Creator, nor Almighty, that is, the holder of 
lomnite- all things 1 from eternity; but this [attribute] would have 
TorJrlTl accrued to Him in time ; which doctrine we even at this day 
read expressed by Origen, in the first book Peri Archon." 
Thus writes Petavius. I might however allege that the text 
of Origen in the first book PeriArchon has been corrupted, or 
that Origen, in what he there writes respecting the eternity 
of the creatures, either reported the sentiments of others, or 
proposed it (as he was in the habit of doing) as a mere con 
jecture of his own, without asserting it as a doctrine; and 
this latter supposition will readily be believed by any one 
who shall have weighed the context of the passage entire. 
I might also have adduced many places in which the true 
Origen plainly teaches that the very primal matter of the 
2 aliquo. universe was created by God, from a definite 2 beginning, and 
that out of nothing. At all events that dissertation which is 
contained in the twenty-third 6 chapter of the Philocalia, is 
professedly directed against the error of those who asserted 
that matter is co-eternal with God. Now, that this chapter 
[530] is really extracted from a genuine dialogue of Origen against 
the Marcionites, is attested by two most credible authors, 
Basil the Great, and Gregory Nazianzen; men whom we 
ought to believe in preference to Huet, although he be a 
most learned man; especially since in charging very great 
men with errors he has himself fallen into manifest error, 
as we have clearly shewn elsewhere. Besides, it was a very 
well known doctrine of Origen, that the Son of God was be 
gotten of the Father before all creatures, and was therefore 
more ancient than they; thus, (to omit a thousand other 
passages,) in the fifth book against Celsus f , he says; "For 

-De 1 rm. i. 4. 7. 6 yap rov OeoC vibs, 6 Trp(ar6roKos 

e [Ed. Paris. 1618. cap. 24. ed. Can- Traces /criVews, et Kal veuffrl eV^flpw- 

tab. 1658.] TTTj/ceVat 5oep, aAA OVTI 76 Sttt TOVTO 

the fact questioned, and the inference from it denied. 415 

the Son of God, the first-born of every creature 1 ,, although BOOK m. 
He seemed to have recently become man, yet is He by no ^J " 1 
means on this account recent ; for the Holy Scriptures re- ORIGEN. 
cognise Him to be more ancient than all the creatures." l irpea&v- 
Now how can this be consistent with the view which makes tustiorem. 
the creature to have existed from eternity with God. 

4. But, suppose we grant to Petavius that Origen s ge 
nuine doctrine is stated in the passage which has been 
quoted from the first book Peri Archon, it is still certain 
that a very wide distinction is there made by him between 
the Son of God and the creatures ; for he teaches that the 
creatures were from eternity with God, as made by Him; 
but that the Son existed with God from eternity as begotten 
of Him, and, further, as His Only-begotten. He teaches 
that the creatures were from eternity subject to God as their 
Lord, but that the Son exercised power 2 over them from eter- 195 
nity, as one God, Lord, King and Prince with the Father, 2 potenta- 
with one and the same omnipotence. Lastly, in the same 
passage he distinguishes the Son of God from every created i 
nature, in such wise as expressly to teach that the one ad- 
mits of change and alteration, but that the Other is wholly 
unchangeable and unalterable; and that the glory of the 
One is most pure and clear, that of the other neither pure 
nor clear; and lastly, that justice, wisdom, and other vir 
tues are mere accidents in created beings, but in the Son of 
God (as also in God the Father) they are His very essence. 
These, reader, are the very words of the passage from which 
Petavius constructs his calumnious charge against Origen. 
In the second chapter of his first book Peri Archon, in ex 
plaining the words of the author of the Book entitled the 
Wisdom of Solomon, who says, touching the Wisdom of God, 
that it is " the breath of the power of God, and a most pure 
effluence of the glory of the Almighty," [c. vii. 25 ;] he thus 
writes^; " As one cannot be a father if there be not a son, 
nor can one be a lord without a possession, or without a 
servant, so God cannot be called almighty even, if there be 

veos <TTI. irpeafivraTov yelp avrbv irav- esse quis, si films non sit, neque do- 

Tiav T&V SrjfjLiovpy^iJ.druv toaffiv ol 0e?oi minus quis esse potest sine posses- 

X6yoi. p. 257. [ 37. p. 606.] sione, sine servo ; ita ne omnipotens 

% Quemadmodum pater non potest quidem Deus dici potest, si non sint 

416 Words which seem to teach the eternity of created beings. 

ON THE not those over whom He may exercise power ; and therefore 
CO-ETER- . n order that Qod m be shewn to be a l m ighty it is necessary 

NITY OF m .-, - 

THE SON, that all things should be subsisting. For if any one will have 
it, that there elapsed any ages or spaces, or by whatever other 
name he will call them, daring which the things which have 
been created had not yet been created, he will unquestionably 
prove this, that in those ages or spaces God was not almighty, 
but afterwards became almighty, from the time that He*be- 
gan to possess those over whom to exercise power, and by this 

![or"ad- means He will seem to have received a certain perfection 1 , 

fiTnV ^ and to have P r g ressed from an inferior state to a better ; see 
ing that it is not doubted that for Him to be almighty is bet 
ter than not to be so. And how will it not then seem absurd 
[532] that, when God [once] had not some of those things which it 
was yet seemly that He should have, He should, in process of 
time, by a kind of advancement, come to have them ? But 
if there never was a time when He was not almighty, those 
things also must necessarily be subsisting by means of which 
He is called almighty, and He must always have had those 
things upon which to exercise power, things to be governed 
[Wisd. by Him as King or Prince. But inasmuch as he has said 
vn. 2*.] ^at there is a glory of the Almighty, of which glory Wisdom 
is the effluence, we are hereby given to understand that even 
2 [or"glory in the omnipotence of glory 2 , through which God is called 
t^nw " 1P " Almighty, Wisdom is associated. For by Wisdom, which is 

ed. Ben.] 

in quos exerceat potentatum ; et ideo do non omnipotens fuerit, necessario 

ut omnipotens ostendatur Deus, omnia subsistere oportet etiam ea per quae 

subsistere necesse est. Nam si quis omnipotens dicitur, et semper habuerit 

est qui velit, vel saecula aliqua, vel in quibus exercuerit potentatum, et 

spatia transisse, vel quodcumque aliud quae fuerint ab ipso vel Rege vel Prin- 

nominare vult, cum nondum facta es- cipe moderata. [The Greek of a por- 

sent, quae facta sunt ; sine dubio hoc tion of this passage is preserved ; it is 

ostendet, quod in illis sseculis vel spa- as follows ; TT&S Se OVK &TOTTOV rb, /*)] 

tiis omnipotens non erat Deus, et post- e^ovra ri TUV TTpsir6vT(av avrcji TUV 6ebv, 

modum omnipotens factus est, ex quo els rb exeii/ eATjAufleVat ; eVei 5e OVK 

habere coepit in quos ageret potenta- eanv tire Tro.vTOKpa.Twp OVK r,v, oe! e?/cu 

turn ; et per hoc videbitur perfectio- 5e? roCra 5t & iravTOKpaTtap earl 1 /cai 

nem quandam [profectum quemdam, ed. del i\v UTT O.VTOV Kparov/jLtva, &PXOVTI av- 

Bened.] accepisse, et ex inferioribus T$ xpco^era.] . . . Sed quoniam gloriam 

ad meliora venisse. Siquidem melius dixit esse omnipotentis, cujus glorias 

esse non dubitatur, esse eum omnipo- aporrhcea est Sapientia, hoc intelligi, 

tentem quam non esse. Et quomodo datur, quod etiam in omnipotentia glo- 

non videbitur absurdum, ut cum non riae [omnipotentia gloria, ed. Ben.] 

haberet aliquid ex his Deus, quae eum societatem habeat Sapientia, per quam 

abere dignum erat, postmodum per Deus omnipotens dicitur. Per Sapien- 

profectum quemdam in hoc venerit ut tiam enim, quae est Christus, tenet Deus 

haberet ? Uuod si nunquam est quan- omnium potentatum, non solum do- 

All the attributes of the Father belong to the Son. 417 

Christ, God possesses power over all, not only by the autho- BOOK m. 
rity of a sovereign 1 , but by the spontaneous service 2 of those "g^ i" 
that are subject [to Him.] Now THAT YOU MAY KNOW QRIGEN. 


LORD WITH THE FATHER, hear John in the Apocalypse speak 

ing on this wise, These things saith the Lord God 3 , which 3 [Apoc. i 

is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty/ For 

He which is to come, who is He but Christ? And as no 

one ought to be offended, that the Father being God, the editors of 

Saviour likewise is God ; so, also, the Father being called [^n ^ 

Almighty, no one ought to be offended that the Son of 

God likewise is called Almighty. For so that will be true 

which He Himself says unto the Father, All that is Mine 4 

is Thine, and Thine is Mine, and I am glorified there- 4 omnia 

iiiV Moreover it is fitly said, the most pure and most ea c * 

o jy pic 

clear glory of Wisdom/ to distinguish it from that glory Wisd \. 
which is not called glory purely and without alloy. But as 25. 
to every nature which admits of change and alteration, even [533] 
though it be glorified in works of righteousness or of wis 
dom, still from this very circumstance, that it has righteous 
ness or wisdom as an accident, and that what is an acci 
dent may also cease to be attached 6 , its glory cannot be 6 decidere 
unalloyed and most clear. But the wisdom of God, which pot 
is His only-begotten Son, INASMUCH AS HE is IN ALL 


GOOD EXISTS AS SUBSTANCE 71 , which plainly is not at any 7 substan- 

tiale in eo 
omne bo- 

minantis auctoritate, verum etiam sub- mea, et glorificatus sum in eis ..... Pu- 

jectorum spontaneo famulatu. UT AU- rissima vero ac limpidissima gloria Sa- 

TEM UNAM ET EAMDEM OMNiPOTEN- pientiae, satis convenienter dictum est 

TIAM PATRIS AC FILII ESSE COGNOS- ad distinctionem ejus gloriae, quae non 

CAS, SICUT UNUS ATQUE IDEM EST CUM pure, nee sincere gloria dicitur. Om- 

PATRE DECS ET DOMINUS, audi hoc nis vero natura quae convertibilis est 

modo Joannem in Apocalypsi dicen- et commutabilis, etiamsi glorificatur in 

tern, Hfec dicit Dominus Deus, qui est, operibus justitiae vel sapientise, per hoc 

et qui erat, et qui venturus est, omn/po- ipsum tainen quod accidentem habet 

tens. Qui enini venturus est, quis est justitiam, vel sapientiam, et quod hoc, 

alius nisi Christus? et sicut nemo de- quod accidit, etiam decidere potest, 

bet offendi cum Deus sit Pater, quod gloria ejus sincera ac limpidissima esse 

etiam Salvator est Deus; ita et cum non potest. Sapientia vero Dei, quae 

omnipotens dicitur Pater, etiam nullus est unigenitus Filius ejus, QUONIAM IN 

debet oftendi, quod etiam Filius Dei OMNIBUS INCONVERTIBILIS EST ET IN- 

omnipotens dicitur. Hoc modo nam- COMMUTABILIS, ET SUBSTANTIALE IN 

que verum erit illud, quod ipse dicit ad EO OMNE BONUM EST, quod utique mu- 

Patrem, quia omnia mea tua sunt, et tua tari atque convert! nunquam potest, id- 

BULL. E 6 


418 Passages cited by Athan. prove both the consubstantiality 

ON THE time susceptible of change or conversion, on this account 
mT E Y T oF~ is His glory declared to be pure and unalloyed/ I have 
THE SON, thought it worth while to make this quotation, notwith 
standing its length, in order that the reader may the more 
thoroughly see the temper of Petavius; although we have 
abundantly proved in another place that Origen held the 
consubstantiality of the Son. 

5. Indeed the very passages of Origen adduced by Atha- 
nasius, (whatever Petavius may say,) are sufficient to affirm, 
not only the co-eternity, but likewise the consubstantiality 
of the Son, if we look to the thing itself, not to the bare 
word. For in them Origen teaches plainly enough, that the 
Son is all that 1 the Father is; and therefore from the fact 
that the Father is invisible, he infers, that the Son also is 
invisible. In the next place he asserts that the Son knows 
the Father absolutely, which certainly belongs not to any 
created nature. Besides, when he calls the Son the bright 
ness of the Father s light, there is clearly intimated by that 
simile the communion of nature, which exists between the 
Father and the Son. Lastly, in affirming that the Son of 
God is the very Wisdom and Reason of the Father, subsist 
ing in Him, he signifies plainly enough that that Son of 
God is in no wise any thing extraneous to God the Father, 
* intimum. as created beings are ; but something altogether within 2 and 
co-essential with Him, which He can no more be without, 
than He can be destitute of His very Wisdom, Reason, or 
Life. Surely, whoever will open his eyes, will at once see 
that Origen in this passage does altogether infer the co- 



circo pura ejus ac sincera gloria prsedi- 
catur. Oper. Origenis Latin., part i. 
p. 673. edit. Basiliens. 1571. [vol. i. 
p. 57.] 

* To have in Himself good as sub- 
stance, is elsewhere, in this very first 
book Peri Archon, laid down by Origen 
as a certain characteristic note of that 
true divinity, which belongs to the 
most holy Trinity alone, the Father, 
the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and can- 
not apply to any created being. For 
thus he writes in chap. 5. (p. 679.) 
[ 3. p. 66;] " Touching the good and 
holy powers, we are compelled to ac- 
knowledge that in them good does not 
exist as substance, which we have shewn 

clearly to be the case in Christ alone 
and the Holy Ghost, as unquestionably 
in the Father also. For the nature of 
the Trinity has been shewn not to have 
any thing that is compounded, as that 
these things should seem by conse- 
quence to be attached to it." De bonis 
sanctisque virtutibus cogimur [similia] 
confiteri, [id est,] quia non substantiale 
sit in ipsis bonum, quod utique in solo 
Christo et in Spiritu Sancto evidenter 
esse ostendimus ; sine dubio utique et 
in Patre. Non enim Trinitatis natura 
habere aliquid compositionis ostensa 
est, ut hsec ei consequenter videantur 

and co-eternity. Huet ansivered, as to the eternity, fyc. 419 
eternity of the Son from His consubstantiality, which he BOOK m. 

HAP. Ill 


takes for granted. 

6. Now, as to the statement of Huet k , that Origen was of ORIQEN 
opinion, that " the matter out of which the world was made," 
not only existed from eternity with God, "but also emanated 
from the substance of God ;" (in such sense, that is, as that he 
laid it down, that the matter of the world is in no respect in 
ferior to the nature of the Son of God;) it is indeed as far re 
moved from the truth as can be, nor can the illustrious writer 
produce a single passage out of the writings of Origen, how 
ever corrupted they be, which even in appearance sanctions 
so detestable a blasphemy. Nay, Origen expressly teaches the 
contrary, as well in his first book Peri Archon, where he ap 
pears to assert the eternity of the world, as in other passages 
throughout his works. For instance, in his sixth book against 
Celsus, (in a passage which we have already adduced 1 ,) he so 
distinguishes between the Son of God and all created nature, 
as to declare Him to be not made 1 , and it to be made 2 . But 

how will this distinction hold good, if, as the Son of God, so 2 
the primal matter of created things both existed from eter 
nity with God, and emanated from the very substance of 
God ? So in the very opening of the first book Peri Archon, 
from which this accusation was taken, in enumerating those 
things which are necessary to be believed by all, he puts [535J 
these two points in the first place m ; "First, that there is one 
God who created and put in order all things, and who, when 
nothing existed, made all things to exist, &c. Next, that 
Jesus Christ was born of the Father before all creatures." 
You observe a manifest distinction by which the Son of God 
is laid down to be born of God the Father Himself, and that 
before all creatures, whereas all the creatures [are said] to 
have been made out of nothing. And it is easy to pro 
duce a hundred similar passages. But Origen s sentiments 
touching the eternity of the Son have already, as I think, 
been sufficiently explained. I now go on to other Ante- 

k Origenian. ii. p. 44. versa, &c. . . . turn deinde quia Jesus 

1 See ii. 9. 9. [p. 230.] Christus [ipse qui venit] ante omnem 

m Primo, quod unus Deus est, qui creaturam natus ex Patre est. p. 665. 

omnia creavit atque composuit, qui- [torn. i. pp. 47, 48.] 

que, cum nihil esset, esse fecit uni- 

E e 2 

420 St. Cyprian held the co-eternity of the Son. 
ON THE nicene writers who have confirmed the same doctrine by 
C KiT B yop" their testimony. 





CYPRIAN. 1. CYPRIAN, in the second book of his Testimonies against 

the Jews, c. vi., among other testimonies of Scripture to es 

tablish the supreme divinity of Christ, cites also that pas 

sage of the Apocalypse, chap. xxi. 6, 7 n , "I am Alpha and 

Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him 

that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He 

that overcometh shall possess these things and the inherit 

ance of them , and I will be his God, and he shall be My 

son." Every one sees that in these words the true God, who 

[536] is the same from everlasting to everlasting, is most plainly 

described. Nor can you expect more from Cyprian ; for, 

though (as we have shewn above) he throughout declares 

the true divinity of the Son, from which His eternity also 

follows by a most manifest consequence, still in no passage 

(so far as I remember) does he directly treat of the co-eter 

nity of the Son. However, from the circumstance of his 

alleging in proof of the divinity of the Saviour a passage of 

the Apocalypse, in which the absolute eternity of the supreme 

God is so clearly depicted, and interpreting it of Christ, we 

certainly conclude that the holy martyr altogether shrunk 

from that blasphemous saying of the Arians respecting the 

Son of God, " There was a time when He was not." 

n Ego sum Alpha et Omega, inilium The Greek words are 

ef finis. Ego sitienti dabo de fonte aquae <rei Travra; Cyprian s, possidebit ea et 

vita gratis ; qui vicerit, possidebit ea et eorum hteredilatem. [Some MSS. read 

eorum haredilatem, et ero ejus Deus, et TO.VTO. instead of TTOA TO. B.] 
ille erit mihi Filius.[y. 287.] 

Dion. R.; the contrary statement the greatest blasphemy. 421 

2. Next to Cyprian we must place Dionysius, pope of BOOK m. 
Rome, as he lived in the time of Cyprian. There is a re- C A ^ 2. V 
markable passage of his respecting the co-eternity of the DIONY- 
Son, which Athanasius has transcribed in his treatise on the SIUS R - 
decrees of the council of Nice, out of an epistle against the 
Sabellians p ; "It is a blasphemy, and no ordinary one, but 
rather the greatest, to say that the Lord is in some sort 1 a i r/xW 
handy-work. For if the Son was brought into being, there riva " 
was a time when He was not; but He was ever in being, if 
at least He is in the Father, as He Himself says, and if Christ 
is Word, and Wisdom, and Power; for the divine Scriptures 
assert that Christ is these, as ye yourselves know, and these 
are powers of Cod ; if then the Son was brought into being, 
there was a time when these were not ; therefore there was 
a time when God was without them; but this is most un 
reasonable 2 ." From this remarkable testimony it is evident 2 aroitA- 
that the dictum of Arius concerning the Son of God, "There rwrov 
was a time when. He was not," had been spread abroad by 
other heretics long before the time of Arius. Compare what we 
have observed in the preceding chapter in treating of Origen, 
2. [p. 412, 413.] Here you also see that Dionysius, who 
was the chief 3 prelate of the whole Christian world, regarded 3 prima- 
that statement as most blasphemous and most unreasonable. n 
Besides, it must also be observed, that these words contain 
the sentiments not merely of Dionysius alone, but also of the 
whole clergy of the city of Rome. For Dionysius wrote that 
epistle, as was the practice of the age in which he lived, not 
without the consent of his clergy assembled in a regular 4 sy- <* legitima. 
nod. Lastly, it will be not foreign to our subject to note this 
in passing, that Dionysius here proves the co-eternal existence 
of the Son of God with His Father, from this, that He is the 198 
Word existing in God the Father Himself. For he argues 
thus ; If the Son be in God the Father Himself, and exist as 
His Word, Wisdom, and Power, then it cannot, without the 

p Pxda-tyri/j.oi ov rb TV^V, /jLeyicrrov ypatya\ t &(nrep eiriaraffOe ravra 5e 5v- 

p.ev ovv, x t P 07ro/Lr l rov Tpdirov nva. A.e- valets ouaai TOV Qeov rvy^avovaiv el 

yeiv rbv Kupiov. el yap yeyovev vibs, TOIVVV yeyovev 6 vlbs, 3\v 6re OVK 3\v 

3\v ore OVK -f\V ael Se ^i/, tf ye ev T$ ravra. -f\v &pa Kaipbs, 6re X U P^ S TOVTODIS 

irarpl eaflv, us avr6s <pt]<n, Kai et \6yos ^v 6 Qeos aroircaraTOv 5e TOVTO. Op. 

Kal ffofyia. Kal Swapis 6 Xpi(rr6s- ravra Athanasii, torn. i. p. 276. [ 26. p. 232..J 
yap elvai T^V XpiaTbv al 6eiai \eyovcri 



422 Dionysius R. identified the Son with the eternal Word; 

greatest blasphemy and the gravest absurdity, be said of 
Him, "there was a time when He was not;" but the Son of 
God is in God the Father Himself, and exists as His Word, 
&c. ; therefore, &c. Dionysius justly took for granted the cor 
rectness of the major premiss; for it depends upon these first 
principles of theology, "Whatever is in God is God;" and 
again, " Whatever is God is eternal." The minor premiss he 
proves from the Scriptures, especially from the words of our 
Saviour Himself, " I am in the Father." We have a little 
above heard Origen arguing in this way, and similar reason 
ing was employed by the Antenicene fathers in general, to 
say nothing of those who wrote subsequently to the council 
of Nice. Now this kind of argument gives a death-blow to 
the Arian heresy. For the Arians laid down that there were 
two Words, as well as two Wisdoms ; one residing in the 
Father Himself, His natural and proper Word, through whom 
He made both the universe and another Word; the other 

1 procre- produced by the Father and the indwelling Word, who is 
named the Word improperly 2 , as being neither His genuine 

3 5| o/c Word nor co-eternal with Him, but made out of nothing 3 by 
God when He was about to create this world ; and this latter 
Word they called the Son of God. This is attested by Alex 
ander, bishop of Alexandria, in his epistle to the bishops of 
the Catholic Church, as given in Socrates, where, enume 
rating the original dogmas of the Arians, he writes thus r ; 
" But the kind of things which they have invented and talk 
of, contrary to the Scriptures, are these ; God was not always 
a Father, but there was a time when God was not a Father ; 
the Word of God was not always, but He came into being 
out of what was not ; for the God who Is, made Him, who was 
not, out of what was not ; wherefore also there was a time 
when He was not; for the Son is a creature and a work 4 ; 
and He is neither like the Father as to substance, nor is He 
the true and natural Word of the Father, nor is He His true 
Wisdom ; but is one of the things made and brought into 

7rot77Ke. 8i2> /cal i]V TTOTC, ore OVK j]V. 
KTL<T/j.a yap eo~ri Kal Troirj/Jia 6 vlos. oure 
Se O/JLOIOS KCCT ovo~iav T<p TIaTpi zffTiv, 


T iro?a 8e irapa TO.S ypatyas 
\a\ovatv, <rri ravra OVK aet 6 e6s 
aAA ^v 6re b ebs rioTTjp 

OVK jv. OVK ael fy 6^ TOV 0eou \6yos, otfre aA.7j0/bs Kal </>u<m TOV Tlarpbs Ao- 
a\\ e OVK ov-rcav ysyovev. b yap &v yos effrlv, ovre aXdiv^ ffocia avrov 

T~bv ^ oj/ra e rov fj.7] ovros ire- e<rri oAA els /we*/ rwv TroiTjudrctiV 

differing from theArians; vindicated from Sabellianizing . 423 

being 1 ; and He is improperly 2 [called] Word and Wisdom, BOOK m. 
inasmuch as He was Himself brought into being by the 2,3. 
proper Word of God and the Wisdom that is in God, by 3 DIONY- 
which also 4 God made both all [other] things and Him [also.] * lv * R ; 
Wherefore also as to His nature, He is capable of change 
and alteration, as all rational creatures likewise are ; and T 
the Word is foreign and alien to, and separated from, the ffriKw ^ 
substance of God." In like manner Athanasius also writes [539] 
in his first and third Orations, and in his treatise on the 3 e *\ 
Views of Dionysius ; Cyril of Alexandria likewise on John, e " v 
book i. chap. 4, and other fathers. You will say, It is in 
deed clear from this that Dionysius of Rome and the other 
fathers who used the same kind of reasoning, have kept clear 
enough of the Charybdis of Arian blasphemy ; but who can 
rescue them from the Scylla of Sabellian heresy ? For Dio 
nysius seems to have thought 1 that the Reason itself, i. e. the 
Aoyos [Word or Reason] by which the Father Himself is 
\oyifcbs [rational], which we conceive of as the form, as it 
were, in His essence, was the Son of God. I reply, It is no 
way credible that Dionysius maintained Sabellianism in that 
very epistle which he wrote professedly against the Sabel- 
lians, and in which, moreover, he expressly charges 8 Sabel- 
lius with blasphemy for having asserted that the Son is the 
Father Himself, and, conversely, that the Father is the Son. 
In what sense, however, the ancient Catholics spoke of the 
Son as the very Word of God the Father, and at the same 
time acknowledged this same Son of God to be really a dis 
tinct Person from the Father, we shall clearly shew here- [540] 
after 1 . In the meanwhile I proceed to confirm the eternity 
of the Son by the suffrages of the other Antenicene fathers. 

3. Dionysius of Alexandria comes next, who was of the DIONY- 
same age as well as of the same name [with Dionysius of SI 
Rome.] Of the heads of doctrine on which his opponents 
falsely accused him before Dionysius of Rome, this was one, 

errrt /caraxpTjcrTt/cws 8e \6yos airffxoivi(r[J.evos *(TT\V 6 \6yos TTJS TOV 

Kal (rotyia, yfv6/ji.evos Kal avrbs Se ry QeoD ovffias. Hist. Eccles. i. 6. 
iSitf) TOV 0eoD \6yq> Kal rfj eV T< 0e< s See the testimony of Dionysius 

(ro pta, eV $ Kal ra iravra Kal avrbi/ ire- which we have quoted above, book ii. 

Trot7j/C6j/ 6 0eos. Sib Kal rpeirr6s eVn Kal ch. 11. 1. [p. 303.] 
a\\oicarbs T^V <pv(Tiv, ws Kal iravra TO, * Of this section, ch. 5. 5, 6. 

\oyiKa.. |eVos re Kal a\\6rpios, Kal 

424 Dionysius Alex, declares that he always held and 

ON THE (as stated by Atlianasius in his epistle on the Views of Dio- 
CO r T E Y T oF~ nysius of Alexandria 11 ;) "God was not always a Father; the 
THE SON. Son was not always [in being], but God was [in being] 
without the Word ; and the Son Himself was not [in being] 
before He was begotten, but there was a time when. He was 
199 not; for He is not eternal, but came into being afterwards." 
For Atlianasius expressly asserts that Dionysius defended 
himself with reference to these points x . Now from this ac 
cusation itself it is clear that that proposition which affirms 
that there was a time when the Son was not, was regarded 
by Catholics in the age of Dionysius as heterodox and un 
reasonable. But how does Dionysius defend himself? Does 
he confess that he had ever written or believed these things ? 
By no means. He professes that he does from his heart 
acknowledge, and ever has acknowledged, the co-eternity of 
the Son. For in the first book of his Refutation and Apo 
logy he says y , " There never was a time when God was not 
a Father ;" and, a little afterwards, he writes thus of .the 
Son of God ; " Being the radiance of eternal light, He must 
needs Himself be eternal; for, the light ever existing, it is 
[541] manifest that its radiance also ever exists." And again z , 
" But God certainly is everlasting light, that hath not had 
a beginning and will never come to an end; therefore the 
1 irpoKtirai. radiance is eternally present before *, and co-exists with Him 
without beginning and ever begotten." And again, "But the 
Son alone, being ever co-existent with the Father, and full of 

[f til* Him that I2 is Himself also in being 3 from 4 the Father." 
I am."] The same Dionysius has passages parallel to these in an epistle 
["Tam!"l St ^ extant > which he wrote against Paul of Samosata, and in 
4 e , K his Replies to the questions of Paul, appended to his epistle. 

In the epistle he writes thus of Christ 3 ; "Christ is one, He 

OVK ael^z/ 6ebs war-tip" OVK ael 3\v * 6 5e ye ebs aiMv e ori Qus, ovre 

6 vibs, a\\ 6 p.ev &ebs fy ^capls rov apd/j.evoj/, ovre A-^oV TTOTC. OVKOVV al- 

Xdyov ^ avrbs Se 6 vlbs OVK ^ -rrplv yev- Aviov TrpJ/ceircu Kal av^ea-riv avry rb 

vijeij, aAA jv TTore, ore OVK j\V ov yap aTravyaa^a &vapxov /cat aeiyevfs. . . . 

Utids ta-Ttv, aA\ forepov ^iy4yovev. ^6vos Se 6 vlbs ael ffw&v r$ Uarpl, K al 

tom.^i. p. 559. [ 14. vol. i. p. 253.] rov Svros TrArjpovfjLwos, Kal avrts lanv 

a.Tro\oyovn,evos irpbs e/celj/a. Ibid. &>v { K rov Uarpos.p. 560. [ 15. p. 

* ov yap j\v ore b Qebs OVK i\v Ua- 254.] 

Tfo . . . airavya(T[Ma Se fa ^corbs atSt ow, a els tarrlv 6 Xptffrbs, 6 &v eV r$ 

KaJ avrbs itt^j effnv. 6vros Uarpl, crvvattios \6yos.-BM. Patr., 

ap^rov U rs, ov &s eVr^ M torn. xi. p. 276. [Opera S. Dion. Alex., 
rb aTravyana.ln the same passage p. 211.1 

as before, [ 15. 

taught the co-eternity of the Son. Passages from his works. 425 

who exists 1 in the Father, the co-eternal Word." In His BOOK m. 
Replies, (Reply to Quest, iv.,) he introduces Christ speak- CI A lj 
ing thus out of Jeremiah b ; "I, the personal 2 , ever-existing DION Y- 
Christ, who am equal to the Father in respect of the un- SIUS ALEX - 
varyirigness of His hypostasis 3 , being co-eternal also with 
the Lord the Spirit ." Here he acknowledges the entire co- 
equal and co-eternal Trinity of Persons. Also, in his Reply \ 
to Quest. v. d , he rebukes Paul of Samosata for having refused ACUCTOZ/ -rfc 
to call Christ "the co-eternal impress of the hypostasis 4 " of ^ T< " 
God the Father. Also in this same reply he sets forth the [542] 
eternity of the Son thus 6 ; "Just then as we perceive that, 
if any one take from the material fire which we use, and 
causes not either injury or division, in kindling light from < us - . 
light, but it remains ; thus in a manner incomprehensible is 
the generation from eternity of Christ from the Father." In 
short that this was the constant opinion which he always 
held, and every where preached and professed, he thus ex 
pressly affirms in his Reply to Question x. f ; "I have written 
and do write, and confess, and believe, and preach, that 
Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word of the Father, is 
co-eternal with the Father." Let Sandius now lay all shame 
aside 5 , and still boast that the great Dionysius of Alexan- 5 per f r i cet 
dria was of the same opinion as Arius. frontem. 

4. Next to Dionysius of Alexandria comes Gregory Thau- GREGORY 
maturgus, who was contemporary with the two Dionysii, of THAUMAT. 
Rome and of Alexandria, and in conjunction with those two 
luminaries shed wonderful light upon that happy age. In 
his Confession of Faith (which I have transcribed above s 
and shewn clearly enough to be his genuine work) Christ is 
called "the eternal impress 6 " of God the Father, and " the 6 

a iStos. 

b 67<i> ... 6 eVuTrrfjrraTos ael &v Xpi- Trap 1 fifjuv V\IKOV irvpbs \df3y TIS, Kal 

ffrbs, 6 fcros rep Harpl Kara rb oTrapaA- irdOos ^ ro ( a?V v Tote?, ey TO? draAa/^- 

XttKrov rrjs viro(nd(reci)s, &v crvva&ios fyat <s K c^corbs, aAAa uevei [al. aAA 

Kal r<f Kvpicp Trj/eu/^ari. p. 284. [p. et /^ei/] TOVTO OUTCDS aitaraX^irTfas e| 

232.] di Sj oy y4vvr](ns TOV Xpicrrou e/c Tlarpos. 

c Observe, in passing, the title 6 [Op-> p. 21-1.] 

Kvpios, " the Lord," applied to the * eypatya, Kal r ypd(pw, Kal 6fj.o\oyS>, 

Holy Spirit hy Dionysius, before the Kal TTHTTZVU, Kal KrjpvTTM (rvvafoiov r$ 

fathers of Constantinople. Tlarpl T^V XpiGTbv, rbv /j.ovoyzi ri vibv 

d [oi/Ve yap a.vex.* rai ciTreTi ] %apaK- Kal \6yov tov Tlarp6s. p. 299. [p. 

Typa (rvvaLSioj/ TTJS TOV eou TlaTpbs 271.] 

uTToo-rao-ews rbv Xpiffr6v. p. 287. [Op., ii- 12. 1 3. [p. 323, where the 

p. 240.] passage is quoted at length.] 
ovv fvvoov^v, oil et e/c TOU 

426 The six Bishops of the Council of Antioch. 

ON THE eternal Son of the eternal Father 1 ." Moreover, in the same 
Confession, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are 
called h "a perfect Trinity, not divided, nor alien, in glory 

[543] and eternity and dominion." 

1 vibs tiStos 5. In the time of this Gregory, six of the most celebrated 
ffrpL bishops from the council of Antioch, which was convened 
COUNCIL against Paul of Samosata, wrote an epistle to Paul, (no doubt 
OCH^ N in accordance with 2 the common sentiments of the other bi- 

2 ex. shops,) in which they speak thus respecting the Son of God 1 ; 

" We believe that He, existing always with the Father, fulfilled 

200 His Father s will with regard to the creation of the universe." 

In these words they expressly teach that the Son of God not 

only existed before the creation of all things, (forasmuch as 

by Him were all things made,) but, also, was ever co-existent 

with the Father, that is, was co-eternal with Him. However, 

concerning even these bishops Saiidius says k , that they "not 

obscurely hinted that the Son, before He was begotten of 

3 inactum. the Father into act 3 , existed only potentially 4 ." But I ask 

4 in P- him in what words of the epistle do they hint this ? I have 

no doubt that he had an eye to those words where the holy 

prelates say 1 , "that the Father begat the Son (tanquam ac- 

6 fvvir6- turn (evepyelav) viventem) as a living and personally existent 5 

seTxiste^ ener g v j working all in all." For I am acquainted with a 

tem, Bull, writer 111 , from whose works Sandius has pilfered, who has 

deduced the same conclusion from these words. If, however, 

that trifler had not delivered a judgment on these bishops, 

as is his wont, on the faith of others, if he had with his 

[544] own eyes inspected the very words of their epistle, and had 

compared them attentively with what goes before and fol 

lows, he would readily have perceived that those words have 

nothing to do with the question of the eternity of the Son. 

That is to say, the fathers are there censuring the heresy of 

Paul and Sabellius, who agreed in this point, that they be 

lieved that the Word or Son of God, through whom all 

h rp&s T6\eia, 86ty K al aiSio rrjTt Kal k Enucl. Hist. Eccles. i. p. 124. 

a ^.77 /xepifoue j/Tj, jUTjSe diraAAo- J \_yewf}(Tai Tos /uei/ rov Trarpbs rbv 

^ TOVTOV^ iri<TTevo/u.ev avv r$ Uarpl rov, evepyovvra. TO. iravra eV iraai. 

atel OVTO. e /cTreTrATjpco/ceWi rb iraTpmbv Ibid., p. 409.] 

pouATjMa irpbs r^v KT HTIV TU>V 6\<av. ni See p. 66 of the Irenicum Ireni- 

Bibl. Pate., torn. xi. [in Routh s Reliq. corum. 
Sacr., vol. n. p. 468.] 

Theognostus of Alexandria, and Methodius. 427 

things were made, was "an unsubsisting energy 1 " of God BOOK m. 
the Father. In opposition to them the holy men teach that | 
God the Father begat His Son as "a living and subsisting 

energy," To the same point also the following words of ANTIOCH. 
theirs in the same place, respecting the Son of God, refer" ; fa^fo^ 
"Through whom the Father made all things, not as through rov, ["an 

, . . , energy that 

an instrument, nor yet as through an unsubsisting know- had no 
ledge 3 ." They are the very same heretics that Gregory ^ s s t tantive 
Thaumaturgus, writing at the same period, had in view when ence."] 
he thus began his confession, " There is one God, Father 
of the living Word, the subsisting Wisdom ." The thing [for 
surely speaks for itself. But to proceed. 

6. Theognostus of Alexandria, a very great man, in that re- ally sub- 
markable fragment of his Hypotyposes. which Athanasius has J 11 

*> eTrLffr-fl/JUI 

preserved to us, (and which we have before p adduced entire,) di/viroo-rd- 
not obscurely confirms the co-eternity of the Son, when he u 

J. H E O 

thus writes concerning Him q ; "The substance of the Son is GNOSTUS. 
not any one that was brought in 4 from without, nor was it 4 e^evpe- 
superinduced 5 out of nothing ; but it sprang 6 from the sub- ^" 
stance of the Father, as the radiance 7 of the light." In these fae-n. 
words he first denies that the Son was superinduced unto [545] 
the Father, and by consequence acknowledges that He is co- 6 fyv- 
eternal with Him. For if there ever was a time when the 
Son was not, and He afterwards accrued to the Father, then 
certainly the Son is rightly said to have been superinduced 
unto the Father. Then, again, he intimates this same thing 
when he declares that the Son was so begotten of the sub 
stance of the Father, as radiance is emitted from light ; for 
it must be that the radiance of eternal light be itself eternal. 
And we have still surer evidence that this was altogether the 
opinion of Theognostus, in the circumstance that he was the 
disciple of Origen, who throughout his writings illustrates 
the eternity of the Son by the same simile. 

7. Methodius, whom Sandius, after Petavius, also classes METHO- 
amongst those Antenicene fathers who agreed with Arius, in D1 

" Si ov 6 Tlarrjp irdvra ireTroiTj/cei/, [p. 298. ] 

ovx &s Si opydvov, oi5 o>s 5t Tri(rrr)/j.r)s i OVK efaOtv ris zcrriv e (|>eupe0e?a a T] 

a.vwKO<rTa.Tov. Ibid. rov vlov ovcria, ou5e eV ^77 ovrcav e-rrei- 

els ebs, Tlarjjp \6yov O>VTOS, cro- GTIX 1 ! ^AA. e rrjs rov Ilarpbs ovaias 

<j)ias u^etTTcocrrjs. Ibid. See above, f<pv, &s rov (pcarbs rb airav-yacr/j.a. 

book ii. ch. 12. 1. [p. 323.] [S. Athan., vol. i. p. 230.] 

p See above, book ii. ch. 10. 7. 

LUS and 

2 omni- 


> [i. e. 

4 extra. 



428 Pamphilus the Martyr, and Pierius, 

the extracts given by Photius from his book Of Chastity, 
declares the eternal generation of the Son from the Father 
in words written as with a sunbeam. For upon the passage 
of the Psalmist, " Thou art My Son, this day have I be 
gotten Thee/ he has this note r ; "For it is to be observed, 
that He declared Him to be a Son indefinitely, and without 
respect to time 1 ; for He said to Him, Thou art My Son/ 
not, Thou hast become [My Son] ; clearly shewn] g that -He 
had neither recently obtained His Sonship, nor, on the other 
hand, having previously been, had afterwards come to an. 
end ; but that having been previously begotten, He both will 
be and is ever the same." 

8. That Pamphilus the Martyr believed the eternity of 
the Son in every sense 2 , is most certainly evident from the 
fact that he strenuously defended Origen as being catholic 
in that article. For in his Apology for Origen he endeavours 
to prove, against his calumniators, and gives substantial proof, 
that Adamantius 3 in his writings throughout asserted these 
doctrines 8 , "that the Father exists not before the Son, but 
the Son is co-eternal with the Father, and that the genera 
tion of the Son of God is independent of 4 all beginning." 
Refer by all means to the Apology itself. And from Pam- 
pliilus s doctrine one may form a conjecture respecting the 
views of his master Pierius, namely, that he also was catholic 
in this article of the faith ; and this conjecture is more fully 
established by the fact that Pierius likewise was a careful 
follower of Origen, who (as we have abundantly proved) has 
in his writings most uniformly asserted the co-eternal ex 
istence of the Son with the Father. To which you may also 
add, that Photius himself (as we have shewn above 1 ) em 
phatically asserts of the renowned Pierius, that he believed 
religiously respecting God the Father and the Son. 

9. Lastly, Arnobius, the same who acknowledged (if any 

r irapaT-ripriTfov yap ort *rb /uej/ vibv 
avTov elvai aopiartas airsfyyvaTO, Kal 
axp6vcas El yhp vibs, avry fyr), Ka \ ov, 
Teyoi/as ifijtedvwr, yu /jre irp6(r<f>aro^ av- 
rbv TeTuTjKeVcu rfjs vlodea-ias, fiTjre av 


KeVat. jxAAa (irpoywqdevra Kal e(Teo-0at 
/cat) e?j/at del rbv aurdi/. cod. 237. p. 
959. [Sympos. Orat. via. p. 112. The 

words included in parentheses are not 
in the text of Bekker s edition of Pho 
tius, Bed. 1824.] 

11 Quod non sit Pater antequam Fi- 
lius, sed coseternus sit Filius Patri, . . . 
extra ullum initiura est generatio Filii 
Dei. [Op. Origenis, iv. App., c. 3. 
pp. 24,25.] 

* ii. 13. 2. [p. 338.] 

and Arnobius, on the truly Divine Attributes of Christ. 429 

one of the ancients did) a truly divine nature in Christ, and BOOK m. 
(as we have shewn above u ) professed repeatedly and in the ^fll^ 
plainest terms, that the Son of God is in the most proper ARNOBIUS" 
sense of the word , and without any ambiguity in the expres- i maxime 
sion, most true God ; this same Arnobius, I say, does through- P r P n< 
out, in terms no less express, affirm that every truly divine 
nature is in all respects eternal, that is, as well as regards the 
period antecedent (a parte ante, as they express it) as the 
future (a parte post.} I can establish this by very many 
passages of Amobius ; but I shall be content with one or two 
testimonies. In his third book this illustrious rhetorician 
treats thus of the divine natures, in accordance with 2 the 2 ex. 
common sentiment of Christians x ; "Our opinion on this 
subject is, that every divine nature, which neither had at any [547] 
time a beginning, nor will at anytime come to an end of life, 
is without corporeal lineaments," &c. In the seventh book, 
not far from the beginning, he thus addresses the Gentiles 
respecting their gods y ; " We have been accustomed to hear 
from you that there are very many gods, and that they are 
reckoned in a series of names : now if these exist any where, 
as you allege, and are real, as Terentius 2 believes, it follows 
that they are like their name, that is, such as we all perceive 
they ought to be, in order to be called by the appellation of 
such a name ; nay, rather, in brief, such as is the Lord of the 
universe, and the Almighty Himself, whom we all know 
to call God, and understand to be true [God] , whenever we 
come to the mention of His name. For [one] God, in that 
He is God, differs in nothing from another [God], nor can 
that which is one in kind exist in a less or greater degree in 
its parts, preserving the uniformity of its proper quality. And 

u ii. 14. 1, 2. [p. 359, &c.] Dominus return est, atque omnipotens 

* Nostra de hoc sententia tails est ; ipse, quern dicere nos omnes Deum 

naturam omnem divinain, quae nee esse scimus atque intelligimus verum, cum 

coeperit aliquando, nee vitalem ad ter- ad ejus nominis accessimus mentio- 

m ilium sit aliquando ventura, linea- nem. Deus enim ab altero, in eo quo 

mentis carere corporeis, &c. [p. 107.] Deus est, nulla in re differt; nee quod 

y Ex vobis audire consuevimus, De- unum est genere, suis esse in partibus 

os esse quamplurimos, et nominum in minus aut plus potest, qualitatis pro- 

serie cornputari ; qui si sunt, ut dici- pria? uniformitate servata. Quod cum 

tis, uspiam, verique, ut Terentius ere- dubium non sit, sequitur, ut geniti 

dit, eos esse consequitur sui consimi- nunquam, perpetuique ut debeant esse. 

les nominis, id est tales, quales eos [p. 211.] 

universi debere esse conspicimus, et Terentius Varro, of whom Arno- 

nominis hujus appellatione dicendos, bius had been speaking just before, 
quin imo, ut breviter finiam, qualis 

430 Arnobius s statements drawn out. 

ON THE since this is undoubted, it follows that they were never pro- 

NIT F" ducedl and that the F must needs be everlast j n g-" From tllis > 
THE SON, according to the view of Arnobius, the following argument re- 
geniti. su i ts . Whosoever is true God, He is in no respect dissimilar 
to God the Father and Lord of all, and therefore must needs 
ingenitus, be unproduced, in other words, not made 2 , and eternal: but 
Christ the Son of God is most true God : therefore, Christ the 
Son of God is in no respect dissimilar to God the Fatherland 
Lord of all, and therefore He must needs be unproduced, in 
other words, not made, and eternal. The major proposition 
is expressly asserted by Arnobius in the words which we have 
quoted; the minor, as was just now stated, we have likewise 
proved above from most express passages of Arnobius. But 
I have no doubt that Arnobius, in the words, " For [one] 
God, in that He is God, differs in nothing from another 
[God], nor can that which is one in kind exist in a less or 
[548] greater degree in its parts, preserving the uniformity of its 
proper quality," had his thoughts directed to the most au 
gust mystery of the Trinity believed by Christians. For in 
that most holy Trinity one Person differs in no respect from 
another, in that He is God, that is to say, so far as the divine 
nature which is common to each is concerned ; nor does 
[the Divine nature] exist in a greater or less degree in one 
Person than in Another ; but the uniformity of the quality 
proper to God, in other words, of the divine properties, is 
preserved in Each. Wherefore since God the Father, whom 
Arnobius calls the Lord of all, is uncreate and eternal, it 
follows that the Son of God likewise, seeing that, as has been 
said, Arnobius altogether believed Him to be most true God, 
is uncreate and eternal. Arnobius, it is true, has herein ex 
pressed himself improperly, in that he calls the Divine Per 
sons parts ; but this may readily be forgiven in a person who 
was still comparatively uninstructed in the Christian sys 
tem, and had not yet been regenerated by holy baptism ; and 
who, lastly, was addressing his oration to persons who were 
Gentiles, and altogether profane ; especially as, in the same 
passage, and as it were with the same breath, he expressly 
declares that the whole Godhead must reside in any part 
whatever of the Godhead. 

10. Thus much, then, concerning the catholic Antenicene 

Petavius s charges contrasted with facts. 431 

writers, who openly, clearly, and perspicuously, and without BOOK m. 
any appearance of inconsistency 1 , taught and professed the jjjjio. 
co-eternity of the Son. From all this it is clear, that what SUMMARY. 
the Jesuit Petavius has written, On the Trinity, book i. c. v. l 
7, is manifestly false ; where (as we have already remarked 
at the beginning of this work) in setting forth the views of 
the ancients, who preceded the council of Nice, respecting 
the Son of God, he thus writes; " They said that the Word 2 2 Filium, 
was put forth by the supreme God and Father at the time 
when He determined on creating this universe, in order that 
He might use Him as His assisting minister. This opinion [549] 
some intimate more clearly, others more obscurely. But 
these may be specially mentioned 3 , Athenagoras, Tatian, Theo- 3 sea isti 
philus, Tertullian, and Lactantius. Both these authors, how- fere 
ever, and the rest whom I have mentioned* 1 ," (and he had 
mentioned nearly all the Antenicene fathers,) "as Origen, 
thought that the Father is superior to the Word in AGE, dig 
nity, and power; and, although they asserted that the Son 
was of the substance or nature of the Father, (in which 
point alone they made His mode of existence* to differ from * conditio- 
that of all other beings, which are properly called creatures,) nem 
still they conceived that He had a beginning no less than the 
creatures ; in other words, that He by no means had been a 
distinct Person 5 from eternity/ 1 For so many early Ante- 5 hyposta- 
nicene writers, whose views I have unfolded severally and 
accurately in the preceding chapters, all expressly denied that 
the Father is superior to the Son in age, and that the Son 
had a beginning. And as regards Origen, whom chiefly 
Petavius charges with this blasphemy, we have abundantly 
proved that he strenuously maintained the co-eternity of the 
Son. But even from this the truth of our first proposition 
clearly appears ; which was this : " The more authoritative 
and larger part of the doctors who lived before the Nicene 
council, unambiguously, openly, clearly, and perspicuously 
taught and professed the co-eternity of the Son, that is, His 
co-eternal existence with God the Father." For Ignatius, 

a [See what we have said in the In- have mentioned, thought," to, "and 

troduction, 7. [p. 9,] for neither there some, as Origen, thought." See the 

nor here are Petavius words quoted by table of Corrigenda at the end of this 

Bull fairly or fully. B. Petavius al- volume.] 
tered the words, " and the rest whom I 



432 The true doctrine connected with Apostolic teaching. 


THE Justin Martyr, Irenseus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, 
Cyprian, Dionysius pope of Home, Dionysius of Alexandria, 
THE SON. Gregory Thaumaturgus, the six celebrated bishops who wrote 
to Paul of Samosata from the council of Antioch, Theognos- 
tus, Methodius, Pierius, the martyr Pamphilus, Arnobius, 
(who certainly constitute by far the greater and the better 
[550] part of the Antenicene writers,) these, I say, did all most 
plainly acknowledge the co-eternity of the Son, And you 
may add to them (one whom I omitted to mention in his 
proper place in this book) the presbyter Caius, a celebrated 
man and very ancient writer, who is said by Photius (cod. 
48 b ) in his work on the Universe, "to describe irreprehen- 
sibly the ineffable generation of the Son from the Father." 
And this Photius certainly would not have said of him un 
less he had acknowledged that eternal generation. Lastly, 
it is evident from this that the view, which laid down that 
the Son of God is co-eternal with God the Father, not only 
approved itself to most of the Antenicene doctors, but- was 
also the received, approved, and settled faith and view of the 
Church of the first ages. For Ignatius, an apostolic writer, 
blames the Cerinthian Gnostics on this account, that in 
opposition to the faith of the Apostolic Church, they attri 
buted a beginning to the Word ; and the same is very fre 
quently done by Irenteus, who was a disciple of Polycarp. 
From the history of Dionysius of Alexandria it is evident that 
all, at that time, who denied the eternity of the Son, were re 
garded as heterodox by the rulers of the Church. Dionysius, 
the pope of Rome, delivered not only his own faith and view, 
out that of the whole Ptoman clergy, when he condemned as 
the greatest blasphemy that saying of Arius respecting the 
Son of God, " There was a time when He was not." Lastly, 
it was by the authority of the whole synod of Antioch (which 
consisted of very many bisliops, and the judgment of which, 
according to Eusebius, E. H. vii. 29, was approved by the 
whole Catholic Church under heaven) that the six bishops, 
whom we have already enumerated, wrote to Paul of Samo 
sata the epistle, in which they clearly asserted the eternity 
of the Son of God in. every sense. 

[See above, book ii. chap. 8. 1. p. 207.] 



1. I NOW proceed to those doctors who, though they seem BOOK m. 
to have denied the co-eternal existence of the Son of God with lp 

God the Father, did yet in reality acknowledge it. Concern- ATHENA- 
ing these, let this be our second proposition ; GORAS. 


There are some catholic writers more ancient than the 
council of Nice, who seem to have attributed to the Son of 
God, even in that He is God, a certain nativity, which began 
at a certain time, and immediately preceded the creation of 
the world. And yet they were very far removed from the 
opinion of Arius. For if their expressions be more accu 
rately weighed, it will appear that they spoke not of a true 
and properly so called nativity, in which, that is, the Son 
received the beginning of His hypostasis and subsistence, 
but of a figurative and metaphorical [one] ; that is, they 
merely intended this, that the Word, who before all ages 
(when nothing existed besides God) did exist in and with 
God the Father, as the co- eternal offspring of the eternal 
mind itself, went forth in operation 1 from God the Father l /car eVp- 
Himself at the time when He was about to form the world, 7ta " 
and proceeded to create the universe, and to manifest both 
Himself and His Father to the creatures ; and that, in conse 
quence of this going forth 2 and manifestation, He is called in S irpo4\v- 
the Scriptures the Son of God, and the First-born 3 . 


3 6 irpcoro- 


They who thus explained the sacred doctrine, were, I may 
say 4 , the following; Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus of An- 4 fere. 
tioch, Hippolytus, and Novatian or the author of the treatise L5 
on the Trinity, published among the works and under the 
name of Tertullian. We will treat of these in order. 

BULL. F f 


434 Athenagoras; the charges against him most easily 

2. And let Athenagoras first stand forth. He is enu- 
CO-ETER- mera ted by Petavius, as we have observed a little before , 
THE BON. amongst those Antenicene fathers who expressed more clearly, 
~ and taught more openly, the blasphemous view of Arius, 
which affirms that the Son was then first produced by the 
Most High God, when He had determined to create the uni 
verse, and that the Son, no less than the other creatures, had 
a beginning. The learned Huet d , relying, as usual,, too much 
on the authority of Petavius, classes Athenagoras with those 
writers who " devised false and absurd notions about the 
Trinity." The defence of Athenagoras, however, will not be 
very difficult, if only the passage, from which these learned 
men seized a handle for this false charge, be produced entire 
and carefully weighed. Athenagoras, then, in his Apology, or 
Legation, for the Christians, addressed to the emperors Mar 
cus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, in 
setting forth the faith professed by Christians respecting the 
most holy Trinity, after he had treated of God the Father, 
comes to the second Person, asserting that God has a Son. 
In order, however, that this may not appear ridiculous to the 
philosophers whom he is addressing, as though, forsooth, the 
Christians had dreamed of figments like the fables of the 
poets, about the sons, that is, and daughters, and grand 
children of Jupiter, he shews that the views which the Chris- 
1 quae phi- tians entertain 1 concerning the Son of God, must altogether 
turChris- ^6 explained in a far different way, that is to say, in a 
tiani. spiritual sense, and in a manner worthy of God : so that the 
Son of God be understood to be the Word of the Father, 
namely, that which stands in the same relation to the 
Father as the inner word of a man to the human mind, 
[553] which [inner word] is both spiritual, and in itself no way 
falls under the [cognizance of the] senses, and also remains 
in the mind, from which it proceeds, and is not separated 
from it ; from which circumstance the evvoia itself of a man, 
[i. e. his thought or conception], is often called his mind. 
For that altogether in this way the Word of God the Father 

is als the offs P rin g of tne mind itse lf f the Father 2 , born of 
It, and remaining in It, and so intimately united to It, that 

c See this same section, chap. 4. 10. d Origenian. ii. 3. 6 p. 187. [p. 
[P- 431.] 253.] 

re moved by citing the passages from his works entire. 435 

He may be simply called the very mind 1 of the Father, and BOOK in. 
so the Father and the Son may rightly be called One 2 . He CH A 2. V 
adds, moreover, that the Son of God is His Word in idea ATHENA- 
and operation, (\6jos eV ISta /cal evepyeia,} inasmuch, that is, GORAS. 
as He Himself both is the pattern, and (if I may so say) the i p8 T meni. 
art divine, according to which God the Father, when He 2 unumdici 
willed, formed all things ; and by Him and through Him m 
were all things created. These are the very words of Athen- 204 
agoras 6 ; "And let no one, I pray, think it ridiculous that 
God should have a Son. For we have not conceived notions 
either of God the Father or of the Son as the poets fable, 
who exhibit their gods as no better than men. But the 
Son of God is the Word of the Father, in idea and opera 
tion ; for by Him 3 f and through Him were all things made, 3 [or, "ac- 
the Father and the Son being One ; and, the Son being in 
the Father, and the Father in the Son, by the unity and 
power of the Spirit, the Son of God is the Mind and Word 
of the Father." And what he had said respecting the Son or 
Word of God in idea and operation, he explains more clearly 
in these words, which immediately follow ; e( But if from 
greater power of apprehension you wish to consider what is 
meant by the Son [of God], I will explain it in a few 
words ; He is the First -offspring 4 of the Father, not as having 
been brought into being 5 (for from the beginning God, be- 
ing eternal mind, Himself had within Himself His Logos, 

[Word or Reason,] being eternally possessed of Reason 6 ,) 6 iasias (- 
but, when all things material were lying like unformed na- 
ture and useless earth, the heavier mixed with the lighter, as 
having gone forth upon them to be an idea and an energy 11 / 

e Kal /XT? fj.01 yeAotoj/ rts vo/"rj, rb u.tvov, (e| apxys yap 6 &ebs, vovs al Stos 

vibv etvat rep e<. ov yap, us iroi^ral &v, eT^ev avrbs ej/ tavra rbv \6yov, ai- 

fj.vQoiroiovffiv, ouSei/ fie\riovs rwv avQpcL- Sicas XoyiKbs &v,} aAA cos TUIV V\IK>V 

iriav SeiKvvvres rovs Beovs, 3) irepl rov ^v/j.irdi Tuv, atroiov (pvcrecas, Kal yris, 

eou Kal Harpbs, 3) irepl TOV vlov ire- oxetas viroKet/ui.ev(ov ^ iKf]v, /uLffjuy/^evoajs 

(f>povi]Ka/j.fv a\\ kffTiv 6 vlbs TOV eoO TOCV Tra^v/j.p(TTpcav Trpbs Ta Kov<f>6- 

\6yos rov flarpbs sv iSea Kal fvepyia repa, eV avro ts I5ea Kal svepyfia e?i/at 

Trpbs avrov yap Kal Si 3 avrov iravra irpoe\Bwv. Apol., p. 10. [ 10. p. 286.] 
4yevTo, evbs oVros rov Uarpbs Kal rov f [See above, p. 153, note h.] 

vlov. ovros 8e roi) vlov eV ITaTpt, Kal % [" The whole difficulty of this pas- 

Tlarpbs ev vl$, v6rif]ri Kal Swo^et sage vanishes if (instead of yrjs, o^e/as, 

TT^e^ytiaTos, vovs Kal \6yos rov Uarpbs the old reading) we read yrjs dxpemy, 

6 vlbs rov eov. el Se 5t virep^o\i]v and remove the bad punctuation of the 

o-uz/ecrews (TKoireiv V/JLLV fTTfi<nv, 6 irals preceding editions." Ed. Ben. B.] 

&ov\eraL, pu $ia ftpaxew irpurov h See Conrade Gesner s note on this 

e?i/at ry Harpl, ou% oos yev6- passage. 

3 Trp 


non quasi 



6 produc- 

* factum 

8 \6yos. 

9 \oymbs. 

436 He asserts (i.) that the Word is not made; (ii.) that 

I assert that this explanation of Athenagoras is as far re- 
moved as possible from the blasphemies of Arms, and, more 
than this, is quite catholic, if we regard the substance itself 
of the doctrine respecting the Son of God. The Christian 
philosopher does indeed allow that the Word of God the 
Father is called by Christians His first-offspring, because of 
a certain going forth 1 , by which He proceeded forth from 2 
God tne Father Himself, at the time when He was about to 
create the world, and that in order that the world might 
be created through Him ; on which point we shall have to 
speak repeatedly in what follows. Nevertheless he explains 
this going forth 3 in such a way, that it seems to me manifest 
enough that he himself entertained no view respecting the 
Word and Son of God which is unbecoming His unchange 
able Godhead and eternal majesty. For 

3. First, he expressly excepts the Word or Son of God 
from the class of the things which were brought into being 
(rwv <yevofjieva)v) . Him, he says, we call the " First-offspring 
of the Father, not as having been brought into being 4 ." This 
excellent man was truly anxious that such an impious thought 
should not steal on the mind of any one. But what c6uld 
have been said more plainly opposed to the blasphemy of 
Arius ? I wonder therefore what could have entered into the 
mind of Petavius, when he suggested a suspicion against 
Athenagoras, as though he had believed that the " going 
forth 5 " of the Word, of which he was speaking, was the pro- 
Auction 6 f Him. For surely the most learned father could 
not have met this calumny in clearer terms than those which 
he has employed. 

Secondly, Athenagoras asserts no less expressly the eter 
nity of the Word or Son of God ; nay, he proves that the 
Son of God was not brought into being 7 , from the fact that 
He existed from everlasting in and with God the Father. 
His words are express ; Not as though He were brought into 
leing, for from the beginning God being eternal mind, Him- 
self had within Himself His Logos, [Word or Reason 8 ,] be- 
ing eternally possessed of Reason 9 ." For afterwards, in the 
same Apology \ Athenagoras lays down this as an undoubted 

ayevv-nrtv n, ical f<rriv atSiov, $ bi/, rb alffd-nrbv, ytwirrtv] apx^^vov 
eVrf . . . [T& Se ou/c e7i>ai Kal -na.v6^vov. . . . [ei Se] . . . afivva.- 

He is eternal ; (iii.) and that as a distinct Person. 437 

axiom; " [Every thing] is either not-made 1 and eternal, or BOOK m. 
made 2 and corruptible." And what the corruptible is he c H !l^ 
presently explains in these words of Plato ; " That which AT HEN A- 
beginneth to be, and ceaseth," (TO ap^o/jievov elvai,, KOI rravo- GORAS. 
jjuevov). Moreover, in this place the word yevvrjrov means T "^ I/ * 
the same as yevopevov, made [or brought into being] ; hence, 2 yevvw bv 
a few words after, Athenagoras explains the former by the 
latter term; "It is impossible," he says, "that the world 
should remain in the same condition, [inasmuch as it has 
been] made (yevopevov) ." And again ; " How is their con 
stitution permanent," (i. e. the heathen gods ,) " seeing they 
do not exist by nature, but are made (yevo/Aevcov.)" The [556] 
sophist Sandius k , therefore, must be put aside, who from 
this and other similar passages has inferred that Athena 
goras believed that even the Son of God began to exist at a 
definite time, on the ground, forsooth, that the Son Himself 
is also in a certain sense yevvyros, (i. e. genitus, "begotten"). 
For when Athenagoras says that every thing that is yevvrjrov 205 
began to exist at a definite time, it is manifest that the word 
yevvrjTov, according to his usage of it, signifies the very same 
as yevopevov, " made." But that the Word or Son of God is 
yevopevov, " made," Athenagoras expressly denies in the pas 
sage of which we are treating ; and, moreover, in the same 
place he explicitly affirms that He existed from eternity 
with God the Father. But let us go on with Athenagoras. 

4. In the third place, it is plain that Athenagoras be 
lieved that the Word did in such wise exist from eternity 
with God the Father, that He was no less a distinct hypos- 
tasis [Person] from the Father from eternity, than after His 
going forth 3 . This is inferred with certainty from the 3 irpo4\ev- 
following reasoning ; Athenagoras says that the Word was ffl 
not made or produced (yevofjuevov, [brought into being]) 
at the time that He proceeded from God the Father ; or, in 
other words, that He did not then at length receive a begin 
ning of His subsistence [substantive existence] . And from 
this we argue thus ; The Word according to Athenagoras 
was a distinct hypostasis [Person] from God the Father, 

rov 8e ecrrt, [al irpovoovp-fvov ] tirl TOU- The Benedictine edition reads ayevt]- 

rov fjLf"ivat rbv K6a"/j.ov yev6fj.vov ir&s ff rov and yevr)r6i/.] 
rovruv jHeVet crvffTaa is, ov <j>v(Tfi &vr(av, k Nucl. Hist. Eccl. i. p. 88. 

dAAa 7e/o/xeW ; p. 18. [ 19. p. 294. 


438 That Athenagoras believed the Word to be 

THE either before His going forth, (and so from eternity), or 
never. The reasoning is clear. For, if Athenagoras thought 
THE SON, that the Word or Son of God before His going forth, 
i hyposta- indeed, was not a distinct Person 1 from God the Father, 
"per se et nor subsisted in Himself and in act 2 , but was only contained 
actu. virtually 3 in the essence of the Father; but that through 
3 8w 4* ei - that going forth He was at length brought forth into actual 
4 inactum. being 4 , and endued with substantive existence 5 ; then indeed 

[557] means of that going forth, was made and produced 

vov, [brought into being]); which yet, he himself expressly 
denies. The case is clear. For if that which is brought out 

6 epotentia from virtual into actual being 6 , which not having previously a 
edudtur! subsistence in itself 7 , is afterwards endued with an actual 

7 per se. and distinct subsistence, must not on this very account be 

said to be brought into being, (yevopevov,) I ask you 
what can possibly be said to be brought into being? And 
hence it is that Petavius at last charges Athenagoras with 
Sabellianism, as if he had believed that there is, and ever 
8 nonnisi has been but one Person 8 of the Father and the Son. 
im This, I repeat, Petavius does, the very same who, both 
in the very passage in which he does it and elsewhere 
throughout, traduces the same Athenagoras as being an 
Arian ; thus fixing on the learned father two heresies which 
are diametrically opposed to each other. I would, how 
ever, entreat the reader (if he be a lover of the truth, 
and possessed by any kind of reverence for this most ex 
cellent writer of a most excellent age), to peruse with his 
own eyes the words of Athenagoras which follow shortly after 
those which we have already brought forward. For thus does 
the Christian philosopher proceed a little after * ; " Who 
would not think it strange to hear us called atheists, who 
speak of God the Father and God the Son, and the Holy 
Ghost, shewing both Their power in unity and Their distinc 
tion in order ?" I also may be permitted to exclaim here, 
Who does not wonder that Athenagoras, when he had put 
forth this confession so express of the Three Persons subsist- 

ris OVK &v air op fa ai, Xsyovras ebi/ Svva/jiiv, Kal rV eV rfj raei 

I vibv @fbv KO.\ TTVCV/JLO. ayiov, aitovcras aBsovs /caA.ou/iei ous ; p. 11. 
O.VTUV Kal TV eV rf) tvAffei [p. 287. See above, ii. 4. 9. p. 153.] 

a distinct Person from all eternity ; shewn at length. 439 

ing in one Divine Nature, could have been traduced as a Sa- BOOK m. 
bellian by any man who has even a grain of candour left ? CH A 4. V 
But elsewhere also, in many passages of the same Apology, ATHENA _ 
Athenagoras distinguishes God the Father from the Son of GORAS - 
God in such a manner, that it is most evident that he did [558] 
not by any means entertain the same opinions as Sabellius. 
Let it suffice to adduce a single passage. Directing his dis 
course more closely to the emperors, Marcus Aurelius Anto 
ninus, and Lucius Aurelius Commodus his son and colleague 
in the empire, and wishing to defend the religion of Chris 
tians who profess the religion of one God, and at the same 
time together with the supreme Father of all adore His 
Word or Son, he says that there is an image of the 
heavenly kingdom shadowed forth, as it were, in their own 
earthly kingdom : in that the government of both being 
monarchical, still there are in each government two per 
sons ruling; but that as one of these refers his authority 
to the other as received from him, and both administer their 
empire with united 1 minds, the monarchy is preserved unim- 1 conjunc- 
paired. His words are these" 1 ; " For as all things are in 
trusted to you, a father and a son, who have received your 
kingdom from above, (for the soul 2 of the king, saith the 2 ^ v x^i- 
prophetic Spirit, is in the hand of God,) so are all things i.] r v 
subject to one God and to the Word [which came forth] 
from Him, whom we understand to be His Son insepa 
rable [from Him] 3 ." But what disciple of the school of 3 ^ 

Sabellius would argue thus ? Surely any Sabellian would afiplff 
have defended the religion of Christians in a very dif 
ferent manner, that is, by saying openly, that absolutely 
only one Person was acknowledged by them in the God 
head, namely, the Father; and that the Son was held to 
be a divine energy only. Indeed this very illustration, which 
Athenagoras uses, is that wherewith the Catholics were ac 
customed to meet the Monarchians. For thus (to pass by 
others) Tertullian, in his treatise against Praxeas, c. 3 n ; [559] 
<{ We hold the monarchia 4 , say they. And so articulately 5 do wwx 1 * 

5 vocaliter. 

m us yap vjj.1v Trarp} Ka\ vl iravra. voov^vca d^epiVrqp irdura 

Ke^eipcoTat, avwOev T^V jSacrtAetai/ eiA?j- p. 17. [ 18. p. 293.] 
$6ffiv, (fia<ri\4<as yap xj/ix?? *v % et P^ n A i0//a PX i/ai/ ) (inquiunt,) tenemus. 

eou, <pt](T\ T& Trpo<$>-f)TiK.})v irvev/j.a,) ov- Et ita sonum vocaliter exprimunt etiam 

Ttas e/i 0e< Kal rip -rrap avrov Acfyy vty Latini, etiam opici, ut putes illos tarn 

1 prae- 

2 singulare 
et unicum 


3 ita unius 

4 preinde. 

5 princi 

6 tarn 

ration em 

440 Anti-Sabellian illustrations used by Athen., as by Tertul. 

even Latins, even the ignorant, enunciate the sound, that you 
would suppose they understood monarchia as well as they pro 
nounce it. But monarchia Latins take pains to pronounce : 
ceconomia even Greeks are unwilling to understand. But for 
myself, if I have gleaned any knowledge 1 of either language, I 
know that monarchia means nothing else than single and indi 
vidual rule 2 ; yet still that monarchy does not on that account, 
because it is [the rule] of one, preclude him whose [rule] it 
is, either from having a son, or from having made himself a 
son to himself , or from administering his own monarchy by 
whom [soever] he will. Nay more, I say that no dominion 
is in such sense that of one, as his own 3 , in such sense single, 
in such sense a monarchy, as not also to be administered 
through other persons most near [to it], whom itself has 
looked out for as officials to itself. Moreover, if he, whose the 
monarchy is, have a son, it does not forthwith become divided 
and cease to be a monarchy, if the son also be taken as a 
sharer in it; but it is on this account 4 in its original 6 his, 
from whom it is communicated unto the son; and so long 
as it is his, it is on this account a monarchy, in that it is 
held together by two who are so individual 6 ." And a little 
after, in chap. 4 p , he adds ; " The same I would wish said 
also with respect to the third degree ;" signifying that the 
case 7 of the Holy Spirit is the same, and that in conse 
quence a true and entire Trinity may be maintained without 
impairing the divine monarchy. And this did not escape 
Athenagoras, as is plain from the passage which we just be 
fore quoted and from other places, which, had there been 
need, we could readily have produced. 

5. But let us see what induced Petavius to fasten this 

bene intelligere povapxtav, quam enun- 
tiant. Sed fjLovapx iav sonare student 
Latini ; olKovo/j.iav intelligere nolunt 
etiam Graeci. At ego si utriusque lin 
guae praecerpsi, novapxiav nihil aliud 
significare scio, quam singulare et uni- 
cum imperium; non tamen praescri- 
bere monarchiam ideo, quia unius sit, 
eum cujus sit aut filium non habere, 
aut ipsum se sibi filium fecisse, aut 
monarchiam suam non per quos velit 
administrare. Atquin nullam dico do- 
minationem ita unius sui esse, ita sin- 
gularem, ita monarchiam, ut non etiam 
per alias proximas personas adminis- 

tretur, quas ipsa prospexerit officiales 
sibi. Si vero et filius fuerit ei, cujus 
monarchia sit, non statim dividi earn, 
et monarchiam esse desinere, si parti- 
ceps ejus adsumatur et filius : sed pro- 
inde illius esse principaliter, a quo 
communicatur in filium ; et dum illius 
est, proinde monarchiam esse, quae a 
duobus tarn unicis continetur. fp. 

[This was a notion of Praxeas; see 
Tertullian s treatise adv. Prax., c. x. 
p. 505.] 

P Hoc mihi et in tertium gradum 
dictum sit. [Tertull. ibid.] 

Petavius misapprehension of his view of the Logos. 441 

charge of Sabellianism 011 the venerable writer. " He seems/ BOOK m. 
he says q , "to have thought, that the reason, i. e. the \6yos 4,5. 
itself, whereby the Father Himself is rational, (Aoy/a>9,) and ATHENA- 
which we conceive of as the form in His essence, is the Son of GORAS. ^ 
God." But whence this seems, whence this fancy, by which 
the Jesuit was so grossly deceived, as to believe that a man, 
by the confession of all the learned most learned, was so 
foolish, so absolutely devoid of understanding and even 
of common sense, that he supposed that the very mind itself 
of God the Father, or that reason itself which is, as it were, 
the form of God the Father, and by which He Himself is 
rational, (Xo7t/co?,) came forth, or proceeded, from Him, just 
before the framing of the world, in order to frame the world? 
No doubt it arises from these words, "From the beginning 
God, being eternal Mind, Himself had within Himself His 
Logos, [Word or Reason,] being eternally possessed of rea 
son," (\oyifcbs,) i. e. rational; in which words indeed he is 
proving the co-eternal existence of the Word with God the 
Father by this argument ; God the Father is eternal mind, 
and possessed of reason (\OJLKOS) from eternity, therefore the 
Word (o \6yos) existed in and with Him from eternity. Now 
who would conclude from this, that the Word in the opinion 
of Athenagoras, was the actual mind or reason of the Father? 
Nay, who would not conclude the very contrary ? For if this 
had been the view of Athenagoras, he would have been simply 
trifling, proving the conclusion from itself l in this way ; God * idem per 
is eternal mind: therefore from eternity He had mind in 1 
Himself. In truth, although Athenagoras a little before 
called the Son of God " the mind r of the Father," (that is, 
in the sense which we there explained,) nevertheless in this 
passage (where he is speaking more properly and strictly) he 
clearly distinguishes the Word (\6yos) or Son of God from 
the divine mind itself, and not obscurely teaches, that the 
latter is the cause of the former. But in order that the 
reader may be extricated from this labyrinth, it is to be ob 
served that Athenagoras, with almost all the ancients, held 
that the Divine Person whom we call the Word and Son of 
God, was in an ineffable and altogether incomprehensible 

i [i. 3. 4.] 435, and Bp. Bull s observations, p. 

[See the passage quoted above, p. 434.] 

442 The Logos understood to correspond primarily with 

ON THE manner born from eternity of 1 the mind and thought of God 

C NI"TY OF" tne Father. And there are many considerations to lead us to 

THE SON, believe, that this mystery was handed down from the Apo- 

[561] sties themselves. Andrew Rivet, in his Exercitation iii. on 

Genesis, chap, i., near the end, affirms that this is certain from 

the Scriptures : " We hold it" says he, " to be certain from 

2 ordinem. the Scriptures, that there exists such a relation 2 between the 

Father and the Son, as between him who speaks within 

3 loquen- [himself 3 ], and the \6yos or inward speech of him who fso] 
terne. n " speaks." Be that however as it may, it is clear that most 

of the ancients were altogether of this opinion. For they 
laid it down that the Word of God the Father was so called, 
from a comparison made, primarily, not with the external 

4 twoia. speaking of man, but with the internal thought 4 and notion 

of the human mind, which philosophers call the word of the 
mind, verbum mentis; wherefore as that internal word ne 
cessarily flows forth from the mind of man, and exists 
simultaneously with it, so from God the Father, who is 

6 gigni. eternal mind, His Word is necessarily produced 5 , and is co- 

eternal with Him; and lastly, as man, the image of God, 
6 experitur. when he is thinking, is conscious 6 of another person, as it 
were, within him, holding converse with him; so in God, 
(who is the archetypal image, of whom whatsoever is more 
obscurely shadowed forth in man, is in Himself beheld most 
perfectly,) His Word is in very deed another than Him 
self, and a Person altogether distinct. To this effect 
Tertullian elegantly unfolds this mystery in his Treatise 
against Praxeas, c. 5, in the following words 3 : "Observe 
that when thou thyself art silently conversing with thyself, 
this very process is carried on within thee by reason, she 

7 cum ser- meeting thee together with a word 7 at every movement of thy 

thought, and every impulse of thy conception 8 . Whatsoever 
thou thinkest, there is word; whatsoever thou conceivest, there 
- is reason. It cannot be but thou must speak that in thy 
9 pateris. mind ; and when thou [so] speakest, thou hast 9 a word con 
versing with thee, in which [word] there is that very reason, 

Vide quum tacitus tecum ipse con- taveris, sermo est ; quodcumque sen- 

grederis.ratione hoc ipsum agi intra te, seris, ratio est. Loquaris illud in ani- 

occurrente ea tibi cum sermone ad om- mo, necesse est; et dum loqueris, con- 

nem cogitatus tui motum, et ad omnem locutorem pateris sermonem, in quo 

sensus tui pulsum. Quodcumque cogi- inest haec ipsa ratio, qua cum eo cogi- 

thought in man, but having a real subsistence in God. 443 

whereby in thinking thou speakest with that [word] , through BOOK m. 
which [word] in speaking thou thinkest. So in a certain way c ? ^ Q 
the word is a second [person] within thee, through whom in ATHENA- 
thinking thou speakest, and through whom in speaking thou GORAS. 
thinkest. The word itself is another [than thyself.] How [562] 
much more fully then is this carried on in God, of whom 
thou also art counted ! as the image and likeness, in that He T censeris. 
has within Him reason even in silence, and in reason a word." 
Now every one must see that the argument of Athenagoras 
proceeds correctly upon this hypothesis. The meaning of 
Athenagoras, however, has been expressed more clearly by his 
contemporary Tatian, who spoke of the co-eternal existence 
of the Father and the Son in these words*: "With Him, 
through a rational power (\o<yiKrJ9 SvvdjLLecos) the Word 
(\6yos,) who was in Him, subsisted u ." And a little after 
wards [he speaks of] "the Word (\6jos) from out the 
rational power (\oyt,/cfjs Swd/Aews}" Observe here that the 
Word (\6yos) is plainly distinguished from the rational 
power (\oyifcfjs Swa^ea?) of God the Father, and the latter 
is plainly laid down to be the cause of the former : this will 
be more fully demonstrated when we come to Tatian. 

6. Certainly, if those who employ this reasoning of Athe- 207 
nagoras in proof of the co-eternity of the Son with the 
Father, are to be accounted Sabellians, almost the whole of 
antiquity, prior to the council of Nice, was Sabellian ; nay, 
the Catholics who lived at the time of that council, and after 
it, must also be classed as Sabellians, seeing that they used 
the self-same argument. I could here adduce several wit 
nesses, but the great Athanasius will be in the stead of them 
all; who thus argues in his second oration x against the Arians : 
1 God is eternally in being ; since then the Father is ever 
in being, His effulgence also, which is His Word, is also 
eternally in being. And again, God, who is [self-] existent 2 , 2 <j & v e e b s . 

tans loquaris, per quern loquens cogi- * Orat contr. Graecos, pp. 145, 146. 

tas. Ita secundus quodammodo in te [ 5. p. 247. See below, p. 448.] 

est sermo, per quern loqueris cogitando, u [See our note below at p. 448, 

et per quern cogitas loquendo ; ipse where this passage is more fully quoted, 

sermo alius est. Quanto ergo plenius B.] 

hoc agitur in Deo, cujus tu quoque x &v effriv d iSiws 6 &e6s ovros olv 

imago et similitude censeris, quod ha- del TOV Tlarphs, eo"ri /cai di 5ia>s teal rb 

beat in se etiam tacendo rationem, et TOVTOV dnavyaa/j.a, oVep <rrlv 6 \6yos 

in ratione sermonem? [p. 503.] aurov. Kal irdAiv 6 &i> ebs e avrov nal 

444 This view approved, and explained by Petavius himself. 

ON THE has from Himself His Word also [self-] existent 1, and neither 
CO-ETER- hath the Word come afterwards into being, not being pre- 
viously in existence, nor was the Father at any time without 
a Word 2 / But why need I say more? Petavius y himself in 
another place judges this kind of argument to be sound and 
substantial, and sets it forth admirably : " With respect to 
those ancients," he says, "who argue thus, that the Son is 
Wo"d ] F therefore co-eternal with the Father, because the Father never 
existed without His wisdom and power, nor the light with 
out its brightness, and other things of the same kind ; they 
rightly use these [illustrations], if they be taken, not in what 
is called a formal, but in a causal or illative sense. For al 
though the Son, so far forth as He is the Son, is not that very 
wisdom, whereby the Father is wise ; still He is necessarily 
conjoined with it, and arises from it. For the wisdom or in 
telligence which is in the Father, yea which is the Father, is 
a simple act, not a habit or faculty. Moreover, every act of 
3 sapiendi. thinking 3 and understanding necessarily involves an express 
4 expressam notion 4 or thought 5 , i. e. a word, nor can it even be con- 
notionem. ce i ve( j i n the mind without it. Justly therefore do the 
tiam. ien " fathers infer the eternity of the Word from the eternity of 
the Father. For never (says Cyril 2 ) will there be mind 
without word, nor can word be conceived of, unless it have 
6 mentem formed mind 6 in it. This he more fully explains in the fifth 
formatam. ^ QQ ^ Q f ^- g Thesaurus. And as we rightly conclude that the 
wisdom, whereby the Father is formally wise, existed from 
eternity in the Father, from this, that the Father never ex 
isted without wisdom ; so do we also prove, by no less neces- 
[564] sary consequence, that the Wisdom which was produced from 
* expres- that and made express 7 , existed from all eternity, inasmuch 
sam. as jj e could no t i n verv ac ts be wise, that is to say, [He could 
9 intense n0 ^ un derstand 9 , without an express notion and Word ; espe- 
non potuit. cially when as for the Father to be wise, in that very respect 
that He is the Father, (i. e. as respects what is peculiar to 
Him, and as respects His personality,) is nothing else than 
for Him to be speaking; which cannot even be conceived 

"I/TO Tbv \6yov exef Kal otfre 6 \6yos z [\oyos yap OVK ecrrai TTOTC vovs 

tiriysyoi tv, OVK &v irpSrcpov, otfre 6 d\\ oi5e \6yos OVK ^x (av *" avrv P- ? 

Uarrip &\oyos ty Trore. torn. i. p. 331. </>&j0eWa vovv. Cyril. Alex. iv. in Joan. 

[Orat i. 25. p. 429.] [Op., torn, iv.] p. 413. 
y DeTrin. vi. 9. 11. 

(iv.) that this going forth oftheWordwas in operation only. 445 

of without an express notion and word, as it were a term ; BOOK m. 
so that in this way the Word may be called, as it were, an c 6$. 
extrinsic form, by means of which the Father hath this, that ATHENA- 
He be speaking and understanding 1 in act. . . . Thus those GORAS - 
points which the ancients establish in their disputations g en s e a ctu. 
touching the eternity of the Son are most true, that the 
Father never was without Word (a\oyos), or without Wisdom 
(acrofos). For in very truth He would have been without 
Reason or Word and Wisdom, if He had not from eternity 
been understanding in act 2 ; which cannot be without a 2 actu ipso 
Word." So far Petavius with his accustomed erudition and * ntellex ~ 
acuteness. Let us now proceed in our explanation of this 
famous passage of Athenagoras. 

7. Fourthly, Athenagoras clearly teaches, that the Word, 
by means of that going forth 3 of which he is speaking, is in 
no wise separated from God the Father, nor exists externally 
to Him; but, as before His going forth and from eter 
nity He was in God the Father, so afterwards and even to 
eternity does he abide in the Father. For He asserts that 
the Father and the Son are even now in such wise one, that 
the Son is in the Father, and the Father in the Son. There 
fore, according to Athenagoras, that going forth of the Word 
was only [a going forth] in operation 4 ; which he also him- 
self expressly intimates, when he declares that He proceeded 

forth in order to be the active power of the creation 5 . In 5 utenergia 
a word, according to the mind of Athenagoras, the Word J^]^^" 
before His going forth differs in this respect alone from rum. 
the Word such as He was after His going forth, in that 
before His going forth the Word was with the Father as it 
were quiescent, whereas afterwards He was \6yos ev evepyeia, 
the Word in operation : so that in both states the Word 
is altogether one and the same, and always abiding in the 
same God the Father. 

8. Fifthly and lastly, from all this it follows, that although [565] 
Athenagoras may have thought that the W^ord was called 

the first-offspring 6 of God the Father, because of His going 
forth, yet he by no means meant that that procession was 
the generation, true and properly so called, of the Word 
Himself. For that alone is to be called the true and proper 
generation of any thing or person, by which it is brought into 


2 fieri. 

446 (v.) that this going forth was not the proper generation 

ON THE being (yCyverai) or produced; but Athenagoras expressly de- 
CO :_ ETEK :~ nies that the Word and Son of God was brought into being 1 , 
or produced, by the going forth of which he is speaking. But 
as a thing is often said then to be, or to be brought into 
being 2 , when it appears, so the Word and Son of God, who 
without any beginning existed from God the Father and 
with Him, as the co-eternal offspring of the eternal mind, is 
said to have been then, as it were, born, when in the crea 
tion of all things He was manifested to the creatures, both 
Himself, and God the Father through Him. Read again our 
observations on Justin in chap. 2. 2. of this book, near 
the end, [p. 405.] Hence, as we shall hereafter see, certain 
of the ancients called this going forth of the Word the reve- 
3 ostensi- lation and shewing 3 of the Son of God, and said that thence- 
onem. Qrtn jj e b ecame ^ as it were, visible to the world; so that it 
is clear that they understood a generation which is figurative 
and metaphorically so-called. To sum up the whole subject 
in a few words. The true and proper generation of the Son is 
that alone whereby from eternity He existed of 4 God the Father 
as the production of the eternal mind Itself. It is, I repeat, 
on account of this His eternal origination and existence from 
the Father, that He is truly called the Son of God; so far 
forth, that is, as, in the language of Tertullian a , "Every ori 
gin is a parent, and every thing which is produced from an 
origin is an offspring/ With Tertullian agrees Athanasius b , 
in his fifth Oration against the Arians ; " For if," he says, 
" the Word be not of God, they would with reason have de 
nied that He is a Son; but since He is of God, how is it 
they do not see at once that that which is from any one is 
the son of that from which also it is ?" And afterwards in 
the same Oration 6 he writes ; " The Word then is the Son, not 
lately made to be or called the Son, but ever the Son ; for if 
He be not the Son, neither is He the Word ; and if He be 



a Omnis origo parens est, et omne 
quod ex origine profertur, progenies 
est. Adv. Prax., c. 8. [p. 504.] 

b ei> yap OUK fffT\v K TOV 0eou 6 
h6yos, euc^Tws &i/ avrbv apvolvTO eli/cu 
vl6v et Se K TOV eoD eVrt, Sia ri /d) 
(rvvopSxnv, OTI rb e/c TWOS virdpxov vlos 
evTiv e/ceu/ou, e o5 /cal effnv ; Oper., 
torn. i. p. 530. [Oral. iv. 15. vol. i. 

p. 628.] 

c tffTiv apa 6 \6yos vlbs, OVK &pri ye- 
yovws, TJ ovo/j.acr6els fibs, a\\ ael vi6s 
et yap /*}) ulbs, ouSe \6yos /cal et 5 /j.r) \6- 
yos, ovfie vtos. T^ yap e/c TOV Tlarpbs 
vl6s can ri Se iffTiv e/c TOV Tlarpbs, et 
/A?) 6 [6 om. ed. Ben,] \6yos, 6 e/c /cap- 
Sias TrpoeAdwv, /cal e/c yaaTpbs 
6eis; p. 539. [ 24. p. 636.] 

of the Word. His mode of expression justified. 447 

not the Word, neither is He the Son. For that which is of BOOK m. 
the Father is the Son; and what is of the Father except the CH |s . V 
Word, which proceeded from His heart, and was begotten ATHENA- 
of His womb 1 ?" But was Athenagoras ignorant of this? 
Certainly not. For we have already fully shewn that he 
acknowledged the eternal production of the Word from the 
divine mind. Therefore when all things are duly weighed, 
it seems that one point only admits of censure in this state 
ment of Athenagoras, that he calls the Word the First-off 
spring of the Father, on account of the going forth of which 
he is speaking. But whoever shall bring this charge against 
Athenagoras, will evidently be himself convicted of useless 
and vain logomachy. For to what purpose is it to wrangle 
about words and modes of speaking when we are agreed 
about the thing itself? Again, as we shall clearly prove [567] 
hereafter, the catholic fathers who lived after the rise of the 
Arian controversy, and among them Athanasius himself, laid 
down that the Son of God is called the first-born, Trpatro- 
TOKOS, (which certainly means the same thing as Athenagoras 
irpwrov yewy/ma, ) in consequence of His going forth from 
God the Father to create the universe, and hence con 
ceived that going forth to be, as it were, a kind of genera 
tion of the Son. I would however intreat the reader, who 
loves and is anxious about the truth, firmly to keep in 
memory this explanation of the most learned Athenagoras, 
(in which he himself a little after d professes, that he is speak 
ing very exactly 2 respecting the Christian doctrine;) and, if 2 a7>to- 
he do this, I venture to pledge myself that he will be more A 76<c 
successful in arriving at the mind of the other ancient 
fathers, who meant the same as Athenagoras, although their 
expressions were generally more obscure. And so much for 
Athenagoras 6 . 

d p. 11. [ 11. p. 287. See chap. xi. thorhas more in his reply to G. Clerke, 
of this book.] 26, 27. B.] 

e [Concerning Athenagoras the au- 









1. AFTER Athenagoras comes his contemporary Tatian. 
He also is classed by Petavius, and by the author of the 
Irenicum, and by Sandius, amongst those fathers who agreed 
with Arms in denying the eternity of the Son. I might 
indeed allege that this Tatian, after the death of his master 
Justin, lapsed into heresy ; and that, in consequence/ he 
is of no authority. But we have no need of this answer. 
The words of Tatian, from which Petavius, and after him the 
others whom I have mentioned, inferred that (alleged) heresy 
of his, seem to me only to require an attentive and candid 
interpretation. For thus he writes in his Oration against 
the Greeks f ; "But I will set forth," he says, "our doctrines 
with greater clearness. God was in the beginning, and the 
beginning, as we have received, was the power of the Word 1 . 
-p or ^ s overe ig n Lord of all, being Himself that where- 
in the universe subsists 2 , was indeed, in respect of the 
creation, which had not as yet been brought into being, 
alone 3 ; but in that He Himself was all power, [and] that 
wherein both visible and invisible things subsist, with Him 
were all things. For with Himself, through rational power 4 , 
there subsisted Himself e and the Word which was in Him h . 
And b J tne will of His simplicity* 5 , the Word bounds forth; 

f aj/e P^ Te P OI/ Se e /cflrjcro/iat TO. ^ue- 
repa. ebs 3\v eV apxf} rty 5e apxV 
A7ow 8vva/j.iv TrapeiATj^ayuer. 6 yap 5e- 
(TTT^TTJS TU>V o\uv, avTbs vTrdp^oov rov 
iravrbs TJ vir6(rTa(ris, Kara jue</ rr\v /j.t]- 
SeVw 7676^77^,61/771 iroirjffiv /j.6vos i\v 
Ka6b Se iraaa 6par>v re Kal 
ooparwj/ avrbs vTr6o-ra<Tis fy, <?vv avr$ 
ra iravra. avv avrcp yap Sia XoyiKTJs 
fvrdfMas avrbs /cat 6 \6yos, bs r\v eV 
avT(f, inrf(rrr](T. Qf\r)fj.ari Se TTJS air\6- 
TTJTOS auTou TTpo-rr^S. \6yos 6 Se \6yos 
ov Kara Kfvov xupyfras cpyov irpu>r6ro- 
KOV rov irarpbs yiverai. rovrov tapev 

rov KOJT/XOU TTJV apx^- P- 145. [ 4, 5. 
P- 247.] 

S avrbs KCU 6 \6yos. So translated 
by Bp. Bull; vid. infr., p. 455, sqq.] 

h [These words (see note p. 443,) 
are differently pointed and interpreted 
by the Beiiedictine editor, crvv avrtp 
ra iravra (crvv avr$ yap) Sia \oyi~ 
KT)S Su^a/ieios avrbs Kal 6 \6yos t>s 
i]v eV avrq virtcrr-riffe, omnia cum eo 
per rationalem potentiam sustentabat 
ipsum etiam illud Ferbum, quod erat in 
eo ..... "with Him did the very 
Word Himself also, who subsisted (T 

Passage from Tatian quoted and explained. 449 

but the Word having gone forth not in vain l , becomes the BOOK HI. 
First-born work of the Father; Him we know [as] the C i ) 2. 
Beginning of the world." Of this passage I will set be- TATIAN. 
fore the impartial reader an explanation which, when he 

has understood, I expect that he will readily of his own <rs. 
judgment acquit Tatian of heresy, at least in this article; 
and clearly perceive his agreement with the Nicene fathers 
on the main point of the matter which is now in question. 

2. The following words, then, require first to be considered : 
" God was in the beginning, and the Beginning, as we have 
received, was the power of the Word." Here it is of the 
greatest importance for us rightly to understand, what Tatian 
means by the power of the Word, (\6yov Suvafjus.) Peta- 
vius k thought that by \6jov Svva/jus was meant the same 
which Tatian soon afterwards calls \o^iKr,v Svvafjiiv, rational 
power, by which again, in his opinion, nothing else is to be 
understood than "the force and power of reason, according [569] 
to which God is able to produce all things." I am myself, 
however, quite persuaded that by \6yov Svva^is we must 
here certainly understand the power of the Word, that is 
to say, the Word of God Himself, who is also called the Son 
of God. And I proceed to establish this by what are, if I 
mistake not, most evident reasons. In the first place, \6<yov 
Svvafus is uniformly found used in this sense in other places 
in Tatian. It is thus used twice in the next page, where 
Tatian, after he had said that the Word, or Son of God, 
created man after the angels, goes on to speak of the provi 
dence of that Word with regard to man now created in the 

with Him, uphold all things through whole scope of the passage, heing fur- 

rational power." In the expression TO. ther confirmed in this opinion by a 

TrapTa uTrea-Trjcre, Tatian perhaps had in corresponding passage of Tertullian," 

view Col. i. 17, Ta iravra. zv auroS aw- &c. ; that is, the passage just referred 

e o-TTj/ce. B. The Benedictine editor to: he adds, "The Oxford editor" 

considered the clause avv avr$ yap to (Worth, Oxon. 1700) "suggests very 

be spurious, and referred to the words of plausibly that we should read" (rather 

Tertullian against Praxeas, c. 5, quoted that Tertullian read) " avrov instead of 

below, c. x. 5, as an imitation of this avr6s."] 

passage. Bp. Kaye (Justin M. ed. 2. * [Bp. Kaye (ibid.) translates these 

pp. 160 162) retains the usual read- words "by the unity of His will;" 

ing, and translates the words thus ; adding in the note, " By the will of 

" For with Him also by a Rational His simplicity I conceive that Tatian 

Power subsisted the Word, who was in meant to express the simplicity of the 

Him." On this he says, "I have fol- Divine Nature, and the consequent 

lowed Petavius, thinking his transla- unity of His Divine Will."] 

tion more agreeable both to the con- k De Trin. i. 3. 5. 
struction of the sentence and to the 

BULL. G g 

450 Power of the Word elsewhere in T. the Word Himself. 

ON THE following words 1 ; " And the power of the Word, foreknowing 
CO-ETER- | n j tse jf wna t was about to come to pass, not by fate, but 
through the determination 1 of the choice of beings possessed 
O f freewill, foretold the issues of the future ; and became 
- the rcstrainer of wickedness, by means of prohibitions 2 , and 
an encourager through praise 3 of such as should 111 be good. 
And when they went out together after one that was more 
subtle than the rest, as being the first produced, 4 , and men 
t Q. OC J even hjjn W j 10 i ia( j r i sen u , 3 against the law 

I SClJ. 

Satan; cf. o f God, then the power of the Word rejected from inter- 
Jobxl 19 * ] course with Himself, both him who had begun the folly, 
210 and those who had followed along with him." Here every 
[570] one sees that the power of the Word is nothing else than 
the Word Himself, or the Son of God. Hence also in the 
latter part of the sentence, the nominative t] ^vva/jus, (the 
power,) although of the feminine gender, has yet a masculine 
pronoun at, (him) referring to it; no doubt because 77 
rov \6jov (the power of the Word) is in sense 6 
, the Word, Himself. And hence Tatian immediately 
after expresses " the power of the Word" in terms which 
more explicitly designate a Divine Person. "And he," (he 
says,) " who was made after the image of God, when the 
more powerful Spirit has been separated from him, becomes 
mortal." Here, as I would remark in passing, it is after 
the manner of the ancient writers that Tatian calls the Word 
a Spirit, which he had also done before, saying n ; " For 
the heavenly Word, begotten a Spirit from the Father," &c. 
There is only one other place, if I remember rightly, where 
the expression, "the power of the "Word," occurs exactly in 
the same sense; namely, where in the same Oration , the 

1 r) 8e TOV Ao7ou Suvojiits, e%ou(ra Trap . . . /cat 6 jj.ev /car et/coya TOV 0eou *y- 

eavrfj TrpoyvwaTiKbv r5 jueAA.oi airofiai- yovus, xupKrOevros air* avrov TOV trvsv- 

vetv, ov /ca0 flfjLapfi^t^v, rrj Se TUV at- /uaros rov SuvaTwrepov, Oi/yrbs yiverai. 

povn&ew avTfovff uov yvApp, r&v /*eA- p. 146. [ 7. p. 249.] 
\&mn> TrpovXeye ras aTro^ao-ets. /cat m [Bp. Bull read /j.e\\6vr(av, (" such 

T^S peis Trovrjp ias /ccoAurr/s eyivero 8t 5 as should be,") probably by conjecture. 

airayopcvffwv, jG>v Se ^XXovTuv aya- All the editions and MSS. have fjiev6v- 

6G>i> ^fttttfuturrfis. /cat eVetS/; TIVL typo- rcav, ("of such as persevere" in good- 

vifMWTfptf irapa. TOVS Xonrovs ovn 5ta rb ness.) B.] 

irpcaroyoi/ov^ (rwf^7]Ko\ovQirt(rav, ical &ebv n \6yos yap 6 eirovpavios irvtvpa. ye- 

aj/6 5et|ai/ ot fetyanrot /cat r bv eVai/to-ra- yov&s cnrb TOV UaTp6s. [Ihid. ad init 

(J.CVOV T$ V6/J.O, TOV OV, TOT6 ^ TOU Cap. 7.] 

\6yov Swapis TOV T &pavTa T^S airo- [\6yov Suj/a^tet KaTaKO\ovQr)<Tov.~\ 

at robs crvvaxoteirtfoarrat TOV- p. 157. [ 18. p. 259.] 
ovv avT<j> Statrrjj 

So here; identified with the Beginning, i. e. the Word. 451 
Christian man is said to " follow the power of the Word/ BOOK m. 


that is, as is clear from the context, the Word Himself, or 2 , 3. 

Son of God. TATIAN. 

3. But this interpretation of ours is strengthened also 
by this second reason. With Tatian "the power of the 
Word" is manifestly the same as " the Beginning;" but he 
himself a little after interprets "the Beginning" by "the 
Word," or Son of God. If you compare the words of Tatian 
which are found at the beginning of the passage which we 
have quoted, with those which conclude it, you will see this 
more clearly. In the former there is, "the Beginning 
(apx nv)) as we have received, is the power of the Word;" 
in the latter, " Him" (TOVTOV, namely rbv \6yov, the Word 
or Son of God, of whom he had before spoken), "we know 
to be the Beginning of the world." Who can doubt that [571] 
Tatian in both places was speaking of the same Beginning? 
Nor is it a conceit of his own, which the Assyrian doctor 
here delivers to us, but the general 1 opinion of Christians: 1 commu- 
as he not obscurely intimates by the words, " we have re- ni 
ceived," and "we know." For very many of the ancients 
designated the Word or Son of God the Beginning, that, 
namely, wherein God was before the creation of the world, 
and so from eternity, and wherein God created the world. 
So Theophilus of Antioch, the contemporary of Tatian, in his 
first book to Autolycus enumerating the names of God, says p , 
" If I should speak of the Word I speak of His Beginning 2 ." 8 rV op-^ 
This same Theophilus, in his second book** to Autolycus, re- xw c 
specting the Son of God, says, "He is called the Beginning 3 ." 3 a 
And presently after in the same passage ; "He, therefore, 
being the Spirit of God, and Beginning, and Wisdom, and 
Power of the Most High." So Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 
vii., calls the Son of God both " Him that is without begin 
ning" and " the Beginning r ." So again Origen, Homil. i. 
on Genesis, at the very outset, on the [opening] words 8 , "In 
the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," makes 
these observations; "What is the Beginning of all things, 

p t \6yov enro>, dpxV o-vrov Xeyw. 355.] 

p. 71. [ 3. p. 339. B. But see the r \_rriv &XP OVOV KOI avapxov apxw T* 

note of the Benedictine editor. ] KOI aTrapxyv TWV ovrwv, rbv vl6v. p. 

q ovros \4yerai apx^ . OVTOS ovv 829; quoted above, ch. 2. 6. p. 409.] 

&v irvev/jia &eov, Kal upxhi Kal aocpia, B In principio creavit Dens coelum et 

. p. 88. [ 10. p. terrain. Quod est omnium principium, 

452 The Beginning understood by the ancients to be the Word. 

ON THE but our Lord and the Saviour of all, Jesus Christ, the First 
ly OF" born f evei T creature? It was in this Beginning, there- 
THE SON, fore, that is, in His Word, that God created the heaven and 
the earth." And thus, finally, (to pass by other Antenicene 
fathers,) Methodius, in the extracts from his treatise on the 
Treplrwi/ Creation 1 , preserved in Photius, cod. 235 l , writing on the 
same passage of Genesis says ; " If by the Beginning any 
one should understand Wisdom Herself," (that is to say, the 
[572] Son of God,) " he would not err." And the catholic fathers, 
who wrote after the rise of the Arian controversy, treated the 
subject in a similar way. For Gregory Nazianzen in his 
thirty-second Oration 11 , which he delivered in the second 
oecumenical council, of one hundred and fifty bishops, thus 
distinguishes the three Persons of the Godhead ; " That 
which is without beginning, the Beginning, and that which 
is with the Beginning, one God." And afterwards v he says, 
"The Name of that which is without beginning is the Father; 
of the Beginning, the Son ; and of that which is with the 
Beginning, the Holy Ghost ; but the nature of these three is 
one, [i. e.] God." Moreover, Augustine x , Jerome, and many 
others so expound the words of Moses, "In the beginning 
God created," &c., as to interpret "the Beginning" of the 
Son of God. Now by these arguments I think it has been 
sufficiently proved that by the expression, " the power of the 
Word," Tatian altogether meant the Word Himself, or Son 
of God. But to what purpose, you will ask, did Tatian say, 
that God the Father was in the Word, as in the Beginning, 
before the foundation of the world, and so from eternity ? 
I answer: Tatian had said concerning God in the words 
immediately preceding^ "He who is in want of nothing 
2 SmA77- ought not to be traduced 2 by us, as if He were in want :" now 

w^/jc w* 

211 this he further states in the words next following, which we 



Dominus noster et Salvator om- p. 758.] 

mum, Jesus Christus, primogenitus v fo/o^o 5e i r ^ ~.~ rA ^ , 

omnis creaturae? In hoc ergo prin- 8e apxfj vlos r$ 5e pera. Trjs ^ 

cipio, hoc est, in Verbo suo, Deus cce- Trix-v^d ayiov d>u<m Se rots ratal pla, 

lum et terrain fecit. [vol. ii. p. 52.] eo s. p. 520. [ibid.] 

* apxw 8^ avr^v T^V aofyiav Xtyw * August. Conf. xi."9. [vol. i. p. 199.] 

Tiy, OVK kv afj.aprot.~p. 939. [quoted and xii. 19, 20, 28. [p. 218.] Hieron. 
>ove, book n. chap. 13. 10. p. 356. Qusest. in Genes, [vol. iii. p. 305.] 

y o -K&VTUV foevSebs ov 

u ^ J 3 u Ttv.vTwv cw ej oer/i uv uiapAT/reoy 

avapxov, /ecu ap x )), Kai rb ^ra rrjs $</> fo&v, t>s tvScfa [ubi supr., c. 4. 
vc ts e ^. p. 519. [Orat. xlii. 15. p. 21-7.] 

TJie meaning of Tatian in using this term, explained. 453 

have up to this point been explaining, saying, that from eter- BOOK in. 
nity, before any things were created, and apart from them, 3 " 4i 
God was self-sufficient ; not wanting place, nor any habita- TATIAN. 
tion, wherein to dwell; nor was Pie without One with whom [573] 
to communicate 1 , or in whom, as it were, to delight Himself; ^esecom- 
inasmuch as from everlasting He was in His Word, and held m 
converse 2 with Him. Thus is the co-eternal existence of the 2 versaba- 
Word with God His Father clearly taught in this passage. 
But Tatian also wished to intimate this, that, before the 
creation of the world, the world itself was in a certain sense 
present to God ; forasmuch as there was really present with 
Him the Word, the Beginning 3 of the world, who is also the 3 princi- 
idea and exemplar, or (in other words) the art divine, where- pium 
by the Father, when He willed, formed the universe ; as Pe- 
tavius himself has elsewhere explained the word Beginning 
(Principium) correctly and according to the meaning of the 
ancients. That this was altogether the meaning of Tatian, 
in the words adduced, will be still further evident from what 
follows in him ; to the consideration of which I now proceed. 
4. Thus then Tatian goes on : " For the Sovereign Lord 
of all, being Himself that wherein the universe subsists, was 
indeed, with respect to the creation, which had not as yet 
been brought into being, alone ; but in that He Himself 
was all power, [and] that wherein both visible and invisible 
things subsist, with Him were all things. For with Him, 
through rational power, there subsisted Himself, and the 
Word, which was in Him." The meaning of Tatian is clearly 
this ; The world and all things that are therein were (to use 
a scholastic phrase) potentially 4 (Swa/Mi) with God from 4 in poten- 
eternity. But how does he prove this ? By this argument, tia 
that there subsisted from all eternity, not only God the 
Father, but also with Him, His Word, who is the Beginning 
(Principium) of the world, by whose power 5 , after He had, as 5 cujus 
it were, leaped forth and proceeded from God, all things Vlrtute - 
were made. This, I say, was Tatian s meaning; The world 
was with God from eternity in its Beginning, that is to say, 
in the Word, who from everlasting subsisted together with 
God the Father. That this may appear more clearly the [574] 
following words must be more carefully weighed ; %vv avrw 
yap Bia \oyifcrjs &vvdjj,ea)s avrb? Kal 6 \6yos, os rjv iv avra, 

454 The Word and the Father subsisting Sia \oyiKrjs Swdpeicos. 

ON THE v7T(7TTj(76. ( " For with Himself through rational power, 
C NI"TY OP" there subsisted Himself and the Word whicli was in Him.") 
THE SON, i maintain that in these words the co-eternal and actual ex 
istence of the Word with God the Father, and that as of a 
Person distinct from Him, and the eternal cause of that ex 
istence, are plainly enough declared. For, first, with respect 
to the eternal existence of the Word with God the Father, 
Tatian clearly and expressly states, that, before the founda 
tion of the world, and when God was as yet alone, (that is 
to say, when as yet no creature had been formed,) the Word 
was in God, and existed with God, as long, that is, as God 
Himself had existed. Secondly, he intimates that that exist 
ence of the Word was [an] actual [existence,] in that he at 
tributes the same mode of existence both to God the Father 
and to His Word, expressing the existence of both by the 
same word ; " There subsisted (vTreo-rrjae)," he says, <( both 
Himself" (namely, God the Father) " and His Word." This, 
however, will be more clearly shewn against Petavius by and 
by z . Thirdly, Tatian teaches us in more ways than one, that 
the Word existed from eternity with God the Father, as a 
Person distinct from Him. For he both says that He existed 
" with" God the Father, which can properly be said only of 
two; and, speaking of God the Father and His Word, he 
says, "both Himself and the Word which was in Him;" 
intimating plainly enough that the Word was not God the 
Father Himself. Again, that no one should suspect that 
the Word here is simply the same as the rational power of 
God the Father, that is, His mind and reason, he openly dis 
tinguishes the Word (6 Xoyo?) from the rational power, (Xo- 
yi/cr) &W/U9.) In the last place, with regard to the eternal 
cause of the co-eternal existence of the Word with God the 
Father, Tatian teaches that the Word from eternity subsisted 

irfs* ^" With G d the Father "though rational force 1 " or "power;" 
/*ea>s. that is to say, that from eternity He sprung from the mind 

of the Father, the co-eternal offspring of the eternal mind ; 

which we have explained above in speaking of Athena- 
[575] goras. But you will say, how then does he say, that God 

the Father also subsisted through rational power? The 

answer is easy ; God the Father, according to Tatian, sub- 

* [But see above, pp. 448, 449, note h.] 

Petavius* translation and interpretation of the words. 455 

sisted through rational power, as through His form, that is, BOOK m. 
He Himself was reason and eternal mind; whilst God the C A 4 P 5 V1 
Son, or the Word, subsisted together with God the Father, TATIAN 
through rational power, as through an efficient cause, that 
is, He was from all eternity born of the mind of the Father, 
the co-eternal offspring, as we have repeatedly said, of the 
eternal mind. This statement of Tatian does indeed appear 
absurd, that before the foundation of the world there exist 
ed with God the Father not only His Word, but Himself 
also a . But in ordinary language, such as Tatian occasion 
ally uses, there is a common way of speaking by] which it 
is said that one is with himself. Thus for instance we 
commonly say, " There was no one with me but myself." 

5. But we must now meet [the arguments of] Petavius. 
"Tatian," he says b , "seems to have thought that the Word 
was produced by the Father from eternity, not actually 1 f actu. 
and in Himself, but only in rational power and potentially 2 ; 2 potestate. 
just as in the same [power] there existed also all things that 
were afterwards created." But, I say, no one who gives a 
little more attention to his words can possibly think that 
Tatian entertained this opinion. For if, according to Tatian, 
to exist by 3 rational power be not actually, but potentially 3 5^. 
to exist, we must suppose that Tatian was of opinion that 
God the Father Himself also existed from eternity poten- 212 
tially only, and not actually; since he says alike of God 
the Father and of His Word, that they subsisted from eter 
nity by rational power. But see here the spirit of Peta- [576] 
vius ; in order to make out what he wished, he distorted the 
text of Tatian, in itself plain enough, by thus translating 
the words, Sia \oyiKrj? Swa/tews avros KOI 6 \6yos, o? rjv 
ev avTu>, vTrearTjcre : " By rational power the Word Himself 
also, who was in Him, subsisted ." But who that has even 
a slight acquaintance with Greek would not have thought 
that the words should rather be rendered as the transla- 

a [The whole of this argument of reading of the Benedictine editor is a 

Bp. Bull is out of place with regard to mere conjecture, and is not noticed by 

the eternal existence both of the Father Bp. Kaye.] 
and of the Son, if we take the verb fore- b [i. 3. 5.] 

<rT77<r6, as the Benedictine editor does, c [Petavius appears to have trans- 

in a transitive sense. Still the pre- lated the passage correctly. See Bp. 

existence of the Son is clear enough Kaye s observations above, p. 449, 

from this passage of Tatian. B. The note h.] 

456 The eternity of the Word follows even on Petavim 

THE tion has it; "per rationalem potentiam turn ipse turn \6yos, 
qui in ipso erat, substitit ?" (" Through rational power there 
THE SON, subsisted both Himself and the Word which was in Him.") 
But even if we receive the absurd version of Petavius, he 
will gain nothing by it. For I ask the Jesuit, what is to 
be made of the words,, "the Word which was in Him," (o 
\6yos y 09 7fv ev avro)) ? Let him tell us how, according to 
Tatian, the Word was from eternity in God the Father. He 
must needs say, that He "was" then in power of reason, 
not in act. But see the gross solecism which would in this 
way arise from Tatian s words. For his statement would 
come to this : The Word, which existed in God the Father, 
not actually, but by power of reason, through the power of 
reason only, not actually, subsisted with God the Father; 
and what can be more absurd than such a statement ? Be 
sides, what sensible person can persuade himself that the 
words Sia Xoyt/erj? Swa^ews (through rational power) have 
1 in poten- no other meaning than eV Svvdfiei, (potentially 1 ,) so far, that 

is, as this expression is used of things which do not yet ex 
ist in act, but may come into existence from certain given 
causes ? Surely \oyifcr) Svva/jLi.s in this place altogether means 
1 rational power/ or faculty/ so to speak; and when the 
Word is said to have subsisted before the creation of the 
world, and even from eternity with God the Father, through 
His rational power, there is clearly intimated the cause of 
the co-eternal subsistence of the Word with God the Father. 
So that Tatian s meaning is plain; As in man his internal 
word necessarily flows forth out of his rational power, and 
co-exists with it, so through the rational power of God, which 
[577] was eternally in Him, the Word hath subsisted with Him 
from eternity. Besides, Tatian said before, as we have seen, 
that God was from eternity in His Word. But how so ? 
Was God in one who Himself as yet existed not, save only 
potentially ? Moreover he asserts that before the foundation 
of the world God was in the Word in such sense as on that 
account not to lack one with whom to communicate. Could 
he have affirmed this of the Word, who was not as yet in 
actual existence ? Lastly, that passage of Athenagoras which 
we adduced in the preceding chapter, [p. 435,] should by 
all means be referred to and compared with the words of 

translation. Tatian and Athenagoras illustrate each other. 457 

Tatian, inasmuch as these two writers mutually throw light BOOK m. 
on each other. Athenagoras denies that the Word or Son C ? A / VI 

a o> o. 

of God was "brought into being 1 ;" adding this reason, be- 
cause God the Father, being eternal mind, and from eter- 

nity rational, (Xayuea*,) that is, possessing 2 what Tatian calls 2 pollens in. 
rational power/ (Xoyncrj Svvctfjuis,) necessarily had the Word 
within Himself from eternity. But how, according to Athe 
nagoras, did God the Father have the Word within Himself 
from eternity ? Was it potentially only ? Absurd ! For in this 
sense the learned writer might with equally good reason have 
affirmed that throughout nature there was nothing " brought 
into being 3 :" inasmuch as all things existed from eternity in Z 
the divine power. Athenagoras, therefore, certainly meant 
an actual existence of the Word, and Tatian the same. And, 
indeed, who does not perceive the exact agreement between 
them both, in what they say respecting the eternity of the 
Word? Athenagoras argues that God the Father had the 
Word in Himself from eternity, because He was from eter 
nity rational (\oyi/cos) ; Tatian in like manner declares that 
the Word subsisted with God the Father, before the creation 
of the world and so from eternity ; but how ? Si a \oyifcfjs 
Swa/i>9, " by 4 [means of] rational power." The thing 4 8ia. 
surely speaks for itself. Let us go on in our explanation of 
Tatian s text. 

6. The following words come next in Tatian ; " And by [578] 
the will of His simplicity the Word bounds forth ; but the 
Word having gone forth not in vain becomes the First-born 
work of the Father ; Him we know as the Beginning of the 
world." Here Tatian s rov \6yov TrpOTrrjSijo-is, " the bound 
ing forth of the Word," is plainly the same as Athenagoras 
TTpoeXevcriSj " the going forth" of the same [Word.] Tatian, 
however, manifestly intimates that that self-same Word, who 
from eternity subsisted in God the Father and together with 
Him, " bounded forth" from God, when God willed to create 
the world. But how did He bound forth? Surely in opera 
tion 5 , or, in other words, in order to be the active principle 5 eV frcp- 
of the creation 6 , as Athenagoras explained the matter; or, as 1* l< * 
Tatian himself presently, in order to be the Beginning (or creanda- 
Principle) of the world (ap^rj rov KOO-^OV). Tatian s First- ^ 
born work, TrpwroroKov epyov, is evidently the same (al- 


458 Tatian held the Word to be uncreate and Divine. 

though rather harshly expressed) as Athenagoras TT/XWTOZ/ 
CO-ETER- ^ vvr] p a) First-offspring. Both writers alluded to the Apo- 

HE SON. stle s words, Col. i. 15, TrpcoToro/cos irao-^ Kriorew^, " the First- 
~ born of every creature/ But Tatian calls the Word a work, 
epyov, not considered in Himself, (for he had just before de 
clared that He subsisted from eternity,) but with respect to 
His "bounding forth" ( TrpoTrriSrjaLs ) ; so that his meaning is; 
"When God willed to create the world, He first caused that 
His Word should bound forth from Him; in other woYds, 
His first work was the sending forth of the Word, in order 
rursus. that through Him in turn 1 this universe might be constituted. 
It is, indeed, most certain that Tatian did not conceive the 
Word to have been a work (epyov), that is, a creature, or 
any thing made ; for his doctrine was manifestly this, that 
between matter, and God the Creator of matter, there is 
nothing intermediate; that, therefore, every creature what- 

213 soever (not even excepting angelic nature itself) is composed 
of matter ; that it is the property of matter to have a begin 
ning ; lastly, that the One Creator of matter is God. Now 
he who taught this, at the same time entirely distinguishes 

[579] the Word from matter, and manifestly lays down that the 
former is Maker of the latter. This will appear most clearly 
from a comparison of some passages of Tatian ; " The case," 
says he d , " stands thus; we may see that the whole fabric of 
the world and the entire creation is both made out of mat 
ter, and that matter itself put forth by God." A little after, 
in the same passage, he lays down in course that the very 
damones, as the heathens called them, that is to say, the 
angels, received their constitution, that is, were compacted, 
out of matter 2 . The same writer, in a passage a little after 
that which we have been thus far examining, both distin 
guishes the Word of God from all matter, and expressly de 
clares Him to be the Creator of matter. For the Word is 
there said by Tatian e " to have Himself created matter for 
Himself;" then, after a short interval, these words follow, 
"Tor matter is not without beginning, as God is, nor yet, 

e^ei Se ouTtw* iraffav eVrti/ t SelV rov [ 12. p. 253.] 

KOoytou TV /caraavceuVj (Tv^Tro.(ra.v T e avrbs eavTQ TT\V v\f]V toffU 

T-TIV troirjffiv, Kal (om. ed. Ben.) 7670- <rs .... oi/re ybp &va.px<>s f] #ATJ, 

VIHO.V e| U ATJ?, Kal ryv v\r)v 8e avrrjv Trip 6 0ebs, ou5e Sia rb &vapx<>v 

vvb TOV 0eoG vpo^^\r)ij.^r)^ p. 151. T^/ tVoSiW/uos T 0e 

He applies to Him the name of God. 459 

from being without beginning, is it of equal power with BOOK m. 
God; but it is produced 1 ; and not brought into being 2 by 5. V ii.i, 
any other, but put forth 3 by the Maker of all things alone/ TATIAN. 
Hence Tatian, whilst he invariably used the most sacred * 
name of God cautiously and most religiously, nowhere attri- 3 
buting it to any other but the true God, yet did not hesitate 
expressly to call the Word, God f , "For," he says, "we do 
not talk foolishly, O Greeks, nor narrate fables to you, when 
we declare that God was made in the form of man." And 
in other places he frequently expresses himself to the same [580] 
purpose ; I would not, however, undertake altogether to vin 
dicate the similes which Tatian employs, after the passages 
which we have hitherto explained, to illustrate, as he might, 
the mystery of the eternal production, or "bounding forth" 
of the Word. There are very few similitudes, if, indeed, 
there are any, especially such as are applied to explain things 
pertaining to God 4 , (seeing that these are matters concerning 4res divi - 
which we can but speak with stammering lips,) which do not 
fail in some one point or other. We have now, I think, 
given a sufficient explanation of Tatian s doctrine touching 
the co-eternity of the Son. 



1. THEOPHILUS follows, the sixth bishop of the Church of THEOPHI- 
Antioch, after the Apostles. Petavius g placed him also in 
the list of those Antenicene fathers who sanctioned by their 
approval the blasphemous saying of Arius respecting the 
Son of God, There was a time when He was not. Let The- 
ophilus, therefore, come forth in person on the arena, to con- 

OVK VTTO rov &\\ov yeyovvla, /j.6vov Se ouSe \-f)povs airayye\\ofji.v ) fbv fv av- 

VTrb rov iravrcav 8r)/ji.iovpyov TrpoySeySATj- 6pu>irov /J.op<f)f) y*yovsva.i Karayyt\\ov- 

eVrj. p. 145. [p. 248.] re?. p. 159! [ 21. p. 262.] 
f ou yap p.<}^o.ivo^v, ^vSpes^EAA^ves, f De Trinitate, i. 3. 6. 




rp& TO)* 

4 eV8ia0e- 



460 Extracts from Theophilus of Antioch ; what he meant by 

tend strenuously for his own orthodoxy; but let him come 
forth unmanned, fully accoutred and protected by his own 
armour, not despoiled of his arms and mutilated, as Petavius 
introduces him. In his second book to Autolycus, after saying 
that the prophets had spoken what was consonant [with fact] 
concerning the past and the present, so that there can be 
no reason for doubting about the future, but that they also 
will all in due season come to pass, he thus proceeds 11 ; 
" And first of all they taught us with one accord, tha\ He 
made all things out of nothing 1 ; for nothing is coseval with 
God; but He being a place unto Himself 2 and in need of 
nothing, and rising above prior to all ages 3 , willed to create 
man, by whom He might be known ; for him therefore did 
He prepare the world beforehand ; for he that is created is 
also in need [of other things] besides ; whilst the uncreate is 
in want of nothing besides [Himself.] God, therefore, having 
His own Word indwelling 4 in His own bowels, begat Him 
together with His own Wisdom 1 , having breathed Him forth 5 
before all things. This Word He had as the minister of 
the things which were brought into being by Him, and 
through Him hath He made the universe. He is called 
the Beginning (apxrj,) because He is the Principle 6 and 
Lord 7 of all things which were created through Him. He 
accordingly, being the Spirit of God, the Beginning, the 
Wisdom, and the Power of the Most High, descended into 
the prophets, and through them spake the things that con 
cern the creation of the world and all the other things ; for 
the prophets were not in being, when the world was made, 
but the Wisdom which is in Him, being the Wisdom of God, 
[was in being,] and His Holy Word, who is ever present 

h Kal irpuiTov (j\v ffv/uQcavcas e 5i 5aai 
-rj/J-as, OTL e| OVK OVTWV TO. iravra eVoiTj- 
aev. ov yap TI T(p (p ffvvrjKfj.acrev 
a\\ avrbs eauroD TO TTOS &v, Kal dvej/Ser^s 
&v, Kal virepf^ui/ Trp?) T<I/ alccvcav, T]Qk- 
ATjtrej/ avOpuiroi/ iroirjirai <jj yixaadfj- TOV~ 
Ttf> ovv 7rpo7jroi/xa(re rbi/ K6ff^ov. 6 yap 
yevrirbs Kal TrpoaSer]s sany 6 8e 076- 
vt)Tos ovtievbs Trpoo-Serrat. excoi/ ovv 6 
s ^v favTov \6yov evSiddeTov eV 
Tens loiois o-TT\dyxvois, fyewrjo-ev av- 
TOV fj.fTa TTIS lauroG cro<pias e|6peu|o- 
-n-pb T&V o\wv. TOVTOV TOV \6yov 
virovpybv TU>V VTT avTov yeyevw- 
v, Kal 01 avTov TO iravra TTCTTOITJ- 

/ce/. OVTOS \eyerai apx^}, ori pxet Kal 
/cupieuei TTOLVTUV T&V 5i avrov Se^rj^i- 
ovpjtj/j.evcav. OVTOS ovv &v TrreC/ua Qeov, 
Kal apx^], Kal crofyta,, Kal ovvapis fyi- 
<rrov, /car^pxero els TOVS vpo(p"f]ras, Kal 
5t avTuv eAaAet TO. irepl rfjs Troi^o-ecos 
rov K^cr/uov Kal T&V XonrGov airavrW ov 
yap i\<Tav ol Trpo^fjrat ore o K6fffj.os eyt- 
VCTO, a\\a T) ffocpia r) ev avT$ ovcra 11 
TOV eoi), Kal 6 \6yos o ayios avrov, o 
del ffvfMTrapwv avT(?.p. 88. [ 10. p. 

l That is, [together with] the Holy 
Ghost. See book ii. 4. 9. [p. 153.] 

the generation of the Word just before the Creation. 461 

with Him." To this should be added another passage of BOOK m. 
Theophilus in the same book ; where, after calling the Word CI ^ A 1 P %" 
the Son of God, in order that the heathen might not en- THEOPHI- 
tertain any absurd notion respecting the Son of God, (in LUS - 
imitation, as it would seem, of Athenagoras,) he carefully 
subjoins an explanation of the mystery in the following 
words J : " Not as the poets and fablers speak of sons of the 
gods begotten by [sexual] intercourse, but as the truth sets 
forth, the Word that is evermore indwelling 1 in the heart of i Siavavrbs 
God. For before any thing was made He had Him as His *" Slde * TOV 
Counsellor, being His own Mind and Wisdom 2 . But when 2 
God willed to make whatever He had determined on, He 
begat this His Word [so as to be] put forth 3 , the First-born 3 v 
of every creature; not that He had Himself become emptied K ^ 
of His Word, but having begotten the Word, and evermore 
holding converse with His Word ; whence the Holy Scrip- 215 
tures teach us, and all the inspired writers, [one] of whom, 
John, declares ; In the beginning was the Word, and the 
Word was with God/ shewing that at the first God was 
alone, and in Him [was] the Word. Then he says; And 
the Word was God ; all things were made by Him, and with 
out Him was not any one thing made. " 

2. In these places I confess that Theophilus attributes [583] 
a certain generation to the Word and Son of God, a little 
before 4 the creation of the world. But what sort of gene- 4 paulo. 
ration did he mean? Certainly not that of a person who 
before was not actually existing ; but, with Athenagoras, 
" the generation of one [who was] not brought into being 6 ," * yfrrrnnv 
who from eternity was with God the Father; and therefore Tov f* 1 7e ~ 


a generation not true and proper, (such, I mean, as that is, 
by which any thing or person is made or produced,) but 
so called figuratively and metaphorically. God the Father, 

i ou% &s ol iroirjral Kal /Avdoypdcpoi Kal r<$ \6yq> avrov Siairavrbs OJJ.I\GOV. 

Xiyovffiv vlubs ewf e/c (rvvovaias yw- oOev SidaffKovaiv 7} at ayiai ypa<pal, 

vco/j.evovs, aAA cby aATjflem Si^ye irai, Kal iravrss ot Tn/eu/xaro^o pot, e >v 3 lca- 

Tbv \6yov rbv ovra 5ia.Tra.VTbs eVStafle- dvvrjs Ae^et, Ev ap-^rj i\v 6 \6yos, Kal 

TOV eV KapSia 0eoG. irpb yap rl yiv4- 6 \6yos fa irpbs rbf 0eoV SZLKVVS 6n 

ffQai, TQVTQV eT^e avp.fiovXov, eauroD eV irpwrois (JLOVOS "f\v 6 &ebs, Kal eV avrf 

vovv Kal <$>p6vt)criv ovra. OTTO TC 5e r?0e- 6 \6yos. eireira Xtyei, Kal ebs ^v 6 

A??(rei/ 6 &fbs woiricrai oaa e^ouAeutraro, \6yos iravra. 8i avrov eycvfro, Kal xca- 

TOVTOV rbv \6yov eytvvrjffe irpofyopiKbv, pis avrov eywero ouSe eV. p. 100. 

TTpuroroKov Traar\s Kriffews ov KevooQels [ 22. p. 365.] 
avrbs rov \6yov, aAAa \6yov yzvviiffas, 


462 Theophihis held the eternal existence of the Word, 

he says, at a given time begat tliat very Word whom from 
etern i t y He had had within Himself, as His Counsellor, and 
even now has, and shall have to eternity, as being " evermore 
T indwelling 1 " in His heart. But how did He beget Him? 
^7 "breathing Him forth 2 / as it is in the former passage, 
- or, as in the latter, by "putting Him forth 3 ," in the begin- 

tado Ps C " nin S f tlie Creation 

xlv. 1. that " going forth in operation (TrpoeXevaw evepyrjTi/crjvy of 
fiTvotved" Athenagoras, of which we have already spoken? In * the 
in the word same way he says that God the Father, when He was about 

X/T" to create tlie world > breatned * forth or P ut forth His Wisd m 

* eructasse. also, that is, the Holy Ghost. For the Son and the Holy 
Ghost are "that ample and ineffable ministering power" (to 
[584] use the words of Iren3eus k , almost the contemporary of The- 
ophilus), which was ever present with God the Father, He 
Himself " not standing in need of angels, nor" of any other 
5 aliove "ministering power 5 for the formation of these things which 
ministerio. were mfi fa\ t These, therefore, when He so willed, He sent 
forth in operation 6 to create the universe. But let us. ex 
amine more accurately the words of Theophilus in each of 
the passages which we have brought forward, in order that, 
constructing out of them, as it were, a kind of summary of 
his doctrine respecting the Word or Sou of God, we may at 
length make it manifest to all, that the venerable patriarch 
was quite catholic on the chief point of the doctrine. First, 
Theophilus clearly teaches that the Word co-existed with 
God the Father from all eternity. The words of the former 
passage are express ; " His Holy Word, which was ever pre- 
sent 7 with Him." And in the latter passage, Theophilus 
sa ^ that before t h e p utt i ng fo^ O f w hi c h he speaks, and 

so from eternity, the Word was present with God the Father, 
as His Counsellor. What shall we say to the fact, that in 
the same place he expressly takes care (even as Athenagoras 
did) that no one of the heathen should attribute a beginning 
to the Son of God, as to some progeny of Jupiter, or con 
ceive of Him otherwise than as "the Word evermore in 
dwelling in the heart of God the Father." 

^ k Copiosum et enarrabile ministe- neque rursus indigente ministerio ad 

1 ^ m ~i 1V L c - 7. 4. p. 236; quoted fabvicationem eorum quse facta sunt. 

before book ii. c. 5. 7. p. 173. note c.] [Ibid., quoted above, p. 172.] 
.Non indigente Patre angelis ____ 

and that as a Person distinct from the Father. 463 

3. Secondly, it is manifest that Theophilus was of opinion BOOK m. 
that the Word, in that He was from eternity in God the CH A J 11 
Father, and with Him, was a living and subsisting 1 Word, THEOPHI- 
that is to say, a Person, and that distinct from God the LUS - 

Father. For whereas he says in the latter passage, that the ^~ " 
Word, before the putting forth of which he is speaking, and 
so from eternity, was the Counsellor of God the Father, the 
very term Counsellor clearly designates not a thing (if one 
may so speak) in the Godhead, but a Person. Now it is [585] 
clear that he who is the counsellor of any one, is a different 
person from him, whose counsellor he is. In the next place, 
what can be more clear than those words in the former pas 
sage, in which the Word, together with the Holy Ghost, is 
said by Theophilus to have been "ever present- with" God 2 ael<ru,u- 
the Father ? For it is a true rule laid down by Athana- vap<at 
sius m , "That which is co-existent is not co-existent with it 
self, but with another." Lastly, what is said in the latter 
passage looks the same way, that God the Father "ever 
more" (that is, both before and after His putting forth) 
"holds converse with 3 the Word;" for all converse is be- 
tween two at least. I cannot indeed but wonder at the dul- 
ness 4 and the absolute wrong-headedness 5 of Petavius, in 4 isevam 
supposing that Theophilus believed that the Word, whom he mentem - 

. , plane in- 

declares to have existed from eternity in God, was the same felix inge- 

with God the Father, i. e. was the very essence of the Father, mum - 

or His Mind and Intelligence, whence it is 6 that He is called . 

6 unde ha- 

Rational 7 . What we have said above on Athenagoras and bet ut. 

Tatian is quite sufficient to confute this dream. But the 7 

Jesuit infers that in the opinion of Theophilus, the Word 

before His putting forth was not a distinct Person from the 

Father, but was His very Mind, from this, that Theophilus 

says that the Word was then evbidOeros, that is, set in and 

shut up in the bowels of God 8 . A frivolous argument indeed, 8 insitum 

and utterly unworthy of so great a man. And yet this so- sum h^De 

phisni is continually used by Petavius, who, if he reads in visceribus. 

any ancient writer, that the Word before the creation of the 

universe existed in God, in the heart, breast, bowels, of God, 

at once infers from this, that according to the opinion of [586] 

rb yap a-vvvirapxov oi>x tavrcj), aAA. Arianos, Orat. ii. torn. i. p. 338. [Oral. 
ffuvvirdpxei. Athanasius contra i. 32. p. 436.] 


464 The expressions of Theophilus imply distinct Personality. 

that writer, the Word was then simply identical with God 
~ the Father, that is to say, was His very Mind or Reason, 
THE SON. w hence it is 1 that He is called rational. But, so far as Theo- 

1 unde ha- phii us i s concerned, there is no difficulty in freeing him from 
suspicion. He had said in the former passage, that, before 
the creation of the universe, when as yet none of the things 
which are made were in existence, God was a place to Him 
self; from which it follows, that, whatever then co-existed 
with God, must be said to have been and to have existed 
in God, and, as it were, in the heart and bowels of God. 
Hence, when he afterwards describes the co- eternal exist 
ence of the Word with God the Father, he says, that God, 
before the foundation of the world, and so from all eternity, 

"invisce- had the Word in His bowels 2 ; which in the latter passage 
8 SU1S * he expresses by the Word perpetually existing and set in 3 

[i. e. fvSid- the heart of God. Although I would not deny that Theo 
philus had regard also to the comparison of the divine Word 
with the human, which being first conceived and shut up in 
the heart, is afterwards brought forth externally by means of 
speech a comparison, which as it holds good in some points, 
so does it fail in more. By this expression, however, The 
ophilus wished chiefly to intimate the same as Ignatius 11 , 
his predecessor in the see of Antioch, when he said that 

4 irapa the Son before all ages was "with the Father 4 ;" and also 
the same as the Apostle John himself intended, who ex 
presses the existence of the Word with God the Father be 
fore the creation of the world, in these words ; " In the be 
ginning was the Word, and the Word was with God." In 
deed Theophilus himself expressly quotes these words of the 
evangelist with the view of proving from them what he had 

6 insitum. asserted, namely, that the Word was from everlasting set in 6 
and existent in the heart of God. Now he who says that the 
Word is set in the heart of God the Father, does by this very 
expression sufficiently distinguish that Word from the heart, 
[587] i- e. from the Mind of God the Father; so that even from 
this one may conclude, that Theophilus by no means thought, 
as Petavius dreamt, that the Word was the Mind Itself of 
God the Father, from which He is called Rational ; but the 
Word flowing forth from the divine Mind, and yet never 

" Ignatius Epist. ad Magnes., p. 33. edit. Vossii. [ 6. p. 19.] 

As before, so after. His putting forth, He is eVSmflero?. 465 

disjoined or separated from It ; which is in truth the very BOOK HI. 
actual doctrine of Catholics of this day. But why need we CI A 3, 4." 
say more in a case which is manifest ? Petavius, who brought 
Theophilus under suspicion, as if he had thought that the 
Word before He was put forth was in no wise a distinct 
Person from God the Father, on this ground, that he said 
that He then "existed in the heart and bowels of God;" 
the same Petavius, I say, might with equal justice and on 
precisely the same grounds, have gone on to accuse the vene 
rable patriarch of the grossest Sabellianism, that, I mean, 
which lays down that the Person of the Father and of the 
Son always was, and even now is, the same. For Theo- 
philus expressly calls the Son of God, " the Word evermore * 1 8<airew- 
being and set in 2 the heart of God;" but the expression T / . 

2 msitum. 

" evermore" (SiaTravros) is equivalent to through all time 3 , 35^^^. 
and consequently embraces all time, past, present, and to T *>s XP^O 
come. So that, according to Theophilus, the Word, who is 
called the Son of God, as He was from eternity, so is He 
still, and will be for ever set in the heart of God. That 
Theophilus however was no Sabellian, is most manifestly 
clear. Nay, throughout his writings he has so manifestly 
distinguished the Word from God the Father, that Peta- 
vius has seized a handle from this, to accuse him of Arian- 
ism; as though forsooth he had put too great an interval 
between God the Father and His Word. These points, how 
ever, will become yet more evident, from the further obser 
vations which we shall make upon the passages of Theophilus 
that are before us. 

4. It is, then, in the third place carefully to be observed, 
that Theophilus explicitly teaches, that the Word who was [588] 
from eternity with God the Father and in Him, and the 
Word whom the Father, when about to create the world, put 
forth from Himself, are altogether the same.. Our defence 
of Theophilus against Petavius principally hinges on this. 
The Arians, I mean, equally with the Catholics, acknow 
ledged that there was in God the Father from all eternity 
a Word ; the point at issue between the two parties was 
this; whether the Word, who is called the Son of God, who 
was incarnate for our salvation, be the same Word that was 217 
in God from eternity ; or another Word, produced and made 


466 (iii.) Theophilus taught with the Catholics that the Word 

ON THE (as were all other things,) by that eternal Word ; the Catho- 
ncs laid down the former doctrine, the Arian fanatics the 


THE SON - latter, as we have already observed . Therefore, if Theophi 
lus thought that the indwelling Word, Xcfyo? eVSmflero?, and 
the [Word] put forth, Trpcxfropi/cos, were two different Words, 
he was on the Arian side ; but if he thought them both the 
same Word, he is on our side. And Petavius indeed does say 

1 statuere. that Theophilus "seems to make 1 two Words, one evbidfc ros, 

set in the Father Himself, which was with Him and in Him from 
eternity, and is the very essence of God, in other words, His 

2 \oyiKbs. mind and understanding, whence it is that He is called rational 2 ; 

the other \6yos Trpofopi/cbs, (put forth,) whom God the Father 
put forth as the Minister of His works." But this is a mere 
dream of the Jesuit, of which not a trace or vestige is found 
in Theophilus ; nay, this notion is manifestly opposed to his 
most express words. For, in the latter passage, after he had 
said that God the Father from eternity had in Himself the 
Word as His Counsellor, he immediately subjoins ; " He 
begat this Word 3 [so as to be] put forth 4 ;" where the de- 
monstrative pronoun "this" manifestly refers to that same 
proiatum. Word, of which he had been previously speaking, namely, 
the Word whom God the Father had in Himself as His 
[589] Counsellor from eternity. Again, when in the same passage 
Theophilus expressly reminds us that we are by all means 
to understand by the Son of God, the Word that is ever 
more evSidOeros, set in the heart of God, how can this 
be consistent with the opinion which Petavius fastens on 
Theophilus, namely, that the Word who is called the Son 
of God, is quite another than the \6yos evSidderos, the in 
dwelling Word of God? Surely there is here a manifest 
contradiction between Theophilus and his interpreter Peta 
vius. Petavius says that Theophilus thought that the Word 
or Son of God, through whom God made the universe, was 
another than that Word that from eternity was evSidOero?, 
indwelling in God; but Theophilus himself expressly says 
that that Son of God is the very Word that was eternally 
eititMeroVi indwelling, set in, and existent in God. Lastly, 
in the former passage, Theophilus, after he had said that the 
Word came down into the prophets, and through them 
spoke of the creation of the world and other subjects, 

" See what we have said in chap. 4. 2. of this book [p. 422.] 

indwelling, and the Word put forth, is one and the same. 467 

immediately subjoins these words ; " For the prophets were BOOK m. 

not in being when the world was created, but the Wis- ^l , 5. 

dom of God, which is in Him, [was in being,] and His THEOPHI- 

Holy Word, who is ever present with Him." Therefore, LUS - 

according to Theophilus, the Word who came down into 

the prophets, (who was without doubt the Son of God,) 

was the same Word which from eternity was present with 

God the Father. Petavius, however, in order any how to 

establish his own conceit, observes that Theophilus interprets 

the former words of John, " In the beginning was the Word, 

and the Word was with God," of the ^0709 evbidBeros, the 

indwelling Word; but the latter, "and the "Word was God, 

all things were made by Him," of the \6yos Trpofopi/cos, the 

Word put forth. But Petavius groundlessly infers from this, 

that in the view of Theophilus, the Word put forth was another 

than the indwelling [Word.] For as John in both clauses 

of his sentence is manifestly treating of one and the same 

Word, so also does Theophilus interpret both clauses of the 

same Word, with this distinction only, that he understands [590] 

the former words, " In the beginning was the Word, and the 

Word was with God," of the Word existing from eternity 

with, and, as it were, quiescent in, the Father ; but the latter, 

" The Word was God, all things were made by Him," of the 

same Word, proceeding forth, as it were, from the Father 

to create the world ; or, as Athenagoras expresses it, of the 

Word in operation 1 , or acting. Let the reader call to mind 1 r$ \6ytf 

what we have said above on Athenagoras. 

5. Fourthly, in the last place Theophilus clearly teaches 
that the Word was no ways divided or separated from God 
the Father, by that putting forth of which he speaks as if 
prior to His being put forth, He existed within Him, and 
afterwards externally to Him but that He subsists in the 
Father eternally. For, in the latter passage, he says that 
God the Father, after He had put forth His Word, was by 
no means " emptied of the Word ;" but that He " evermore 
holds converse with His Word," even as He had done from 
everlasting. And, in the former passage, he distinctly says, 
that the Son of God is "the Word evermore indwelling 
(StaTTaz/ro? ev$id@Tos) set in the heart of God." Now from 
all this it certainly follows, that by the putting forth or 




? Kararovs 
ifiiovs av- 
TOV \6yovs, 
8 StaAuo- 

468 (iv.) The generation he speaks of is a putting forth only in 

generation of the Word, Theophilus in this passage meant 
no other than [a putting forth] in active operation 1 , whereby, 
that is, God the Father put forth [exerted] the Almighty power 
of the Word, who subsists in Him from everlasting to ever 
lasting, for the bringing into being all things out of nothing, 
and preserving them in their being. For that active opera 
tion of the Son or Word, which at the first went forth ad 
extra, to use the language of the schools, when God the 
Father willed, even now continues and will never cease. ^This 
going forth of the Word from the Father is beautifully set 
forth by Athanasius in his Oration against the heathen, in 
the following words p : "God," he says, "is [self] existent and 
not compounded, wherefore His Word also is [self] existent 
and not compounded, but one and the only-begotten God, 
who also, having gone forth 2 from the Father, good as from 
a good fountain, sets in order and holds together all things. 
Now the cause for which the Word, the Word of God [I 
mean], hath come upon 3 the things that are made, is truly 
wonderful, and evidences that it was not fitting that it should 
be done otherwise than as it is. For the nature of created 
beings 4 , inasmuch as it subsists out of what existed not, is 
unstable 5 and weak, and liable to dissolution 6 , when consi 
dered in itself. But the God of all is good and of surpassing 
excellence in His nature ; whence also He is full of loving- 
kindness towards man; for with a being that is good, no 
envy can exist as to any thing ; hence neither does He envy 
any his being, but wishes all men to be, in order that He may 
be able also to exercise loving-kindness towards man. When 
therefore He saw that all created nature, so far as it is con 
sidered in itself 7 , was unstable and on the way to pass into 
dissolution 8 , in order that this might not be the case, nor 

See Hebrews i. 2, 3. 

p 6 tbs &v ecm, Kal ov 
Sib wal 6 TOVTOV \6yos &v ecm, /cat ou 
(TvvBfTos, aAA els Kal /j.ovoyev^s ebs, 
6 Kai K Tlarpbs, ola 71-777775 070077$ aya- 
Obs irpoe\6(ai , TO. iravTa Sta/too-jue? Kal 
crui/e xei. ri Se atria Si %v 6 \6yos, 6 
TOV &ov \6yos, rots yevo/j.ft ois eirifie- 
jSTj/cej/, earlf a\r)du>s Oav/j-aar^ Kul yvo)- 
pi^ovcra, #TI OVK aAAcos eTrpeireis, f) ovroj 
7ei/eV0ai tiffirep Kal eVri. rcav yap 
yfvr)T(av 77 Averts, fire 8^7 e| OVK ovruv 
VTto(TTu<ra, pevvTf) TIS, Kal avdev^s, Kal 

], KaO eai/T^i/ ffvyKpivo/j.ei>T) rvy- 
6 Se -r&v ft\(av e&s ayaBbs Kal 
vTrep/caAos rrjv fyvaiv e trri Sib Kal (pt- 
\dvQpwn6s etrrtv. ayaQty yap irepl ov- 
Sei/bs av yevoiro <pQ6vos dQev ovSe rb 
e?j/at Ttvt (pOove i, aAAa iravras tivaifiov- 
Aerat, ivo. Kal (pihavOpcaireveaQai SUI/TJ- 
Tat. bpuv ovv Tr]t> ywt]T)]V Traaav (pixriv, 
QGQV Kara rovs ISiovs avrijs \6yovs, ^eu- 
ar^v ovffav Kal StaAuo/xeVTj* , iva /JL^ rov- 
TO TrdOp, Kal ira\iv is TO fj.^j eT^at ava- 
\v6rj rb 6\ov, TOVTOV eveKev Tif eavTov 
Kal aiS iCf} \6y<f iroiT)<ras TO. irdi/Ta, Kal 

operation, and is continuous; illustrated from St.Athan. 469 

the universe be again resolved into non-existence, on this BOOK m. 
account, having by His own eternal Word made all things, CH P 5. V " 
and given substantive existence 1 to the creation, He left THEOPHI- 
it not to be borne along and tempest tost 2 by its own nature, *- 
lest it should be in danger [of falling back] again into non- 2 &4pwfa 
existence ; but, as being good, He governs and stablishes Kal X^M- 
all things by His own Word, who Himself also is God; that 
the creation being enlightened, by the guidance, and provi 
dence, and disposal of the Word, might be able to continue 
firm." Here you have the very expression, "having gone [592] 
forth 3 ," which Athenagoras used in speaking of the same 3 
subject. The same meaning however was expressed by The- 
ophilus, in the words " breathing forth 4 ," and " putting 4 
forth 5 ," which, when referred to God the Father, signify 
His sending forth the Word to create the universe. God 
the Father did, as it were, breathe forth, and put forth the 
Word ; the Word Himself, on the other hand, went forth 
from the Father for the creation of all things. Now, as 
Theophilus said that the Word, notwithstanding that put 
ting forth, continues evermore indwelling 6 , set in the heart 
of God, just in the same way Athanasius treats respect- 
ing that going forth of the Word from the Father of which 
he is speaking 7 . For in the same passage, after some sen- ^ sua. 
tences, he has these words ^ ; " He Himself remaining un 
moved with the Father, yet moving all things by His own 
arrangement, just as in each particular instance it seems 
good to His Father." In conclusion, as Theophilus called [593] 
the putting forth of the Word His generation, so I have 
undertaken above to shew, that the Word is for the same 
reason called the First-born 8 by Athanasius, and other catho- 8 
lic fathers who wrote after the Nicene council ; nor have I Kov 
any doubt but that, if God will, I shall make good my pro 
mise. Meanwhile, let this be sufficient in explanation of the 
opinions of Theophilus respecting the co-eternity of the Son. 


ov G tea eras TT]V KT KTLV, OVK d^rj/cev avr^v (^omfoueVTj T) Krians 

ry eavTTjs Qixrei ^e peo-flai ical x* l V-<*-&- 8w7j0j?. torn. i. p. 45. [ 41. vol. i. p. 

trQai, Iva /J.T) Kivfivvtvari iraXiv els rb ^ 40.] 

tivac a\\ ws ayaObs ry eavrov \6ycp 1 airrbs /*lv aKivrjTos [ifvuv Trapa r$ 

Kal avr< OVTI 0e&5 TTJV (rv/m-rracrai Siaitv- Hmpl, vdvra Se KLVWV rrj eauroi) OWTC- 

fispva Kal KaOiar-rjaw iv a rrj rov \6yov crei, us by CKCHTTOV r<f eauroO Tlarpl 

Kal irpovoia. Kal Sta/cocrjuVei So/cp p. 46. [ 42. p. 41.] 



ON THE 1. THE views of the martyr St. Hippolytus have now to be 
^ITY^OF" ex pl ame d by us in a few words. Sandius r affirms that he 
THE SON, taught, that the Son began to exist a short time before the 
creation of the world. The passage, which I suppose San- 
dius had in view, occurs in the Homily respecting God, 
Three and One, and the Mystery of the Incarnation, against 
the heresy of Noetus 8 ; where Hippolytus thus speaks; 
" God being alone in existence, and having nothing coeval 
with Him, was pleased to create the world; having con 
ceived an idea of the world, having willed and spoken, He 
1 6 K 6(TfjLoi> created it 1 ; and immediately there was present with Him 
Ttrohifflv. ^hat which was brought into being as He willed. This, 
then, alone, is sufficient for us to know, that there existed 
nothing coeval with God besides Himself. But He Him- 
muitus. se lf being alone was many 2 , for He was not without Reason 
3 &\oyos [a Word 3 ,] nor without Wisdom, nor without Power, nor 
without Counsellor. And all things were in Him, and He 

Lat. ers. Himself was all 4 . When He willed, as He willed, He mani- 

4 T<* irw. fested, in the times appointed with Himself, His Word, 

[594] through whom He made all things. When He wills, He 

creates ; when He conceives, He accomplishes ; and when 

He speaks, He makes manifest; when He forms, He shews 

forth wisdom. [For all things that were made He contrives 

by His Word and Wisdom, creating them by His Word and 

r Enucl. H. E. i. p. 98. enim erat sine ratione, (&\oyos,) sine 

Deus solus cum esset, nihilque sapientia, sine potentia, sine consilio. 

sibi coaevum haberet, voluit mundum Omnia erant in eo, ipse erat omnia. 

efficere, et mundum cogitans, ac vo- Quando voluit, et quomodo voluit, os- 

lens, et dicens effecit; continuoque ex- tendit Verbum suum temporibus apud 

titit ei factus, sicut voluit, perfecit. . . . eum definitis, per quern omnia fecit. 

Satis igitur nobis est scire solum, niliil Qui cum vult facit ; quando cogitat, 

esse Deo coaevum. Nihil erat praeter perficit ; quando loquitur, ostendit ; 

ipsuin; ipse solus multus erat. Nee quando format, sapientiam edit. Fecit 

Passage speaking of a generation of the Word in time. 471 

setting them in order by Wisdom.] He therefore made 
[things that were made,] as He willed, for He was God. 
But of the things which were made. He begat the Word to 
be the Prince, and Counsellor, and Artificer ; and this Word, 
having within Himself, and invisible to the created world, 
He makes visible; uttering His voice first 1 , and begetting 
Light of Light, He sent forth [Him] as Lord for the Crea 
tion ; His own Mind, who was before visible to Himself alone, 
and invisible to the created world ; [Him] He makes visible, 
that through His appearing, the world, having beheld Him, 
might be saved. And thus there stood by Him Another : but 
when I say Another, I do not say [that there are] two Gods, 
but [I say that He is Another] as light from light, or as 
water from a fountain, or as a ray from the sun. For the 
Power from the Whole is one 2 ; the Whole however is the 
Father, from whom the Word is the Power ; and this [Word] 
is the mind (or sense 3 ), which, going forth in the world, was 
manifested [to be] the Son of God. All things, therefore, 
are (made 4 ) through Him, and He Himself alone is (be 
gotten 5 ) of the Father." 






igitur sicut voluit ; Deus enim erat. 
Eorum autem quae facta sunt, ducem, 
consiliarium, et operarium generabat 
Verbum ; quod Verbum cum in se ha- 
beret, essetque mundo create inaspec- 
tabile, fecit aspectabile, emittens prio- 
reni vocem, et lumen ex lumine gene- 
rans, deprompsit ipsi creaturae Domi- 
num, sensum suum : et qui prius ipsi 
tantum erat visibilis, mundo autem in- 
visibilis, hunc visibilem facit, ut mun- 
dus, cum eum, qui apparuit, videret, 
salvus fieri posset. Atque ita adstitit 
ei alius. Cum alium dico, non duos 
Deos dico, sed tanquam lurnen ex lu 
mine, et aquam ex fonte, aut radium a 
sole. Una enim virtus ex toto ; totum 
vero Pater, ex quo virtus, Verbum ; 
hoc vero mens, save sensus, qui pro- 
diens in mundum ostensus est puer 
Dei. Omnia igitur per eum facta sunt, 
ipse solus ex Patre genitus. Bibl. 
Patr., torn. xv. p. 622. [The Greek is 
given by Fabricius in his edition, vol. 
ii. p. 13. c. 10. B. It is now added, 
having been followed in the transla 
tion, in which the words omitted in the 
Latin are within brackets. 

eavr<f ff 

6 K6ff/J.ov evvorjOels, 6e\ri<fas T6 Kal 
eiroirifffv, $ TrapavriKa ira- 
rb yev6fJievov us rjOeXfjcrev. au- 
TapKes oiiv rffjuv effTiv fj.6vov elSevat OTI 
orvyxpovov eoO ovficv, irXfyv avrbs, "f\v. 
avrbs Se p.6vos &v TroAus ?iv, ovre yap 
&\oyos, ovre affotyos, ovre aSvvaTOs, 
ovre cc/SofA-euros %v. iravra 5e i\v eV 
i\v Tb trav. 8re T]de\rj- 

yap /j.ta y 

3 mens 
sive sen 
sus, Lat. 
Vers. Bull. 

4 facta, Lat. 
Vers. Bull. 

5 genitus, 
Lat. Vers. 


avrov Kaipo?s upio fj.ei ois Trap 1 avry, Si 
ou TO. irdvra. eiro(f\aev. ore /mei> 6e\ei, 
ore Se evQvjj.elra,i, reAe?, #re Se 
, SeiKvveL, ore TrAcco tret, ffo- 
. Trdvra yap TO, yevofj-ej/a 5i 
:al (Tobias rexva^erai, \6yca /*ev 
<ro(f)iq Se KO(r/J.(t)V. eiroiTjo ev ovv 
le^s yap l\v. TUIV Se ye- 
apx-nyov Kal av^ovXov Kal ep- 
eyevva \6yov, $>v \6yov e%wi/ eV 
aoparSv Te QVTO. Tip KTI 
, opaTbv irate?, irpoTfpav 
(f)6eyy6/J.evos, Kal <f>ws eK (p&ros 
irporjKev rrj KT/cret Kvpiov, rbv tfiiov vovv, 
avrtf /JLOVW irp6Tepov oparbv 
TCf 8e yevojjievcp /cocryuoj aopaTov 
oparbv Trote?, oirws Sia rov $avr\vc 
o K6ff/j.os ffudrivai SuvrjQfj. Kal ovrcas irap- 
tararo avry erepos. erepov Se Xeywv 
ou Svb &eovs Ae yco, aAA* us (bus e/c 0co- 

472 The generation spoken of not one whereby the Word began 

ON THE 2. I own indeed that Hippolytus here attributes to the 
C m~ T To R F~ Word or Son of God a certain generation, immediately an- 
THE SON, tecedent to the creation of the world ; but I altogether deny 
that Hippolytus is speaking of a generation properly so 
called, such, that is to say, as was a production of the Word, 
or by which the Word Himself, having had no previous exist 
ence, began to exist. The whole context of Hippolytus is 
opposed to this imagination. For he teaches that, God was 
1 solum. in such sense alone 1 from eternity, as that at the same time 
multum, he affirms that He was many 2 . But how? surely, because 
God the Father never was without Reason [Word 3 ], and 
raTione (ry Wisdom, that is, without the Son and the Holy Ghost ; and, 
i therefore, not without Counsel, inasmuch as He had Both 
as His Counsellors. I have no doubt that this is the genu- 
[595] ine meaning of those words of Hippolytus: "Nothing ex- 
4 multus, isted besides Himself; He Himself being alone was many 4 , 
TroAi/s. f or jj e was not w ithout Reason [Word 5 ,]" (without doubt 
tione, Gr. Hippolytus had written in the Greek ru> Xoyw, the Word,") 
&\oyos. nor without Wisdom, nor without Counsellor." For the 
very title of this Homily shews that Hippolytus acknowledged 
6 Trinum. that God is One and Many, that is, Three 6 ; one in essence, 
three in Person. But Hippolytus designated by the name of 
Wisdom the third Person of the Godhead, after the example 
of Irenseus, (of whom he is said to have been a hearer,) and 
according to the custom of those times u . Hippolytus then 
goes on to say that God begat the Word, which from eter 
nity He had had within Himself. But how ? " Him," he 
says, " He manifested in the times appointed with Himself; 
Him He sent forth as Lord for the creation ; Him, in fine, 
who before was known to Himself alone, He made visible to 
the world." It follows that the generation of which Hip 
polytus is speaking, is not the production of the Word, but 
7 depromp- a shewing, bringing forth 7 , and manifestation of Him who 
from eternity was co-existent with the Father, such as had 
relation to created beings. So that the most blessed mar- 

rbs, r) ws u Scop e w TTT^TJS, $ cos a-KTiva SC avrov, airrbs Se povos e/c irarp6s.~\ 
airb f)\iov. Mvafjus yap pia. 7] e/c TOV u See above, book ii. chap. 4. 10. 

iravrbs, rb Se -KO.V Uar^p, e| ov SwayUis [pp. 155, 156;] and chap. 5. 7. [p. 

\6yos. ovros Se vovs bs Trpo/Bas eV ic6- 174.] 
(Tfj.<a 45fiKfvTo Trews 0eoG. TTOJ/TO Toivvv 

to exist ; clear from the context, and his other works. 473 

tyr meant precisely the same as we have before shewn to BOOK m. 
have been the teaching of Athenagoras*. ^2^ 

3. Indeed the very words of the passage quoted lead us HIPPOLY- 
to understand Hippolytus in this sense ; but his other Tus - 
writings absolutely compel us to it; for in them he de 
clares, in words written as with a sunbeam, the co-eternal 
existence of the Son with the Father. Thus, in his short 
treatises against Bero and Helix 7 in the Collectanea of 
Anastasius the Librarian, fragment Ix. ; (which we have 
vindicated above from the cavils of Sandius and others 2 ) [596] 
he attributes to the Son altogether the same divine nature 

as is in the Father, and the same properties ; that is to say, 
" the being without beginning, uncreatedness, unbounded- 
ness, eternity, incomprehensibility;" (Anastasius version 
is correct, though unclassical a ). Hippolytus, therefore, held 
that the Son, equally with the Father, is without beginning 
and eternal. 

4. Furthermore, there is still extant under the name of 
Hippolytus a short treatise on the End of the World, on 
Antichrist, and the Second Coming of Christ; which, if it 
be genuine, manifestly shews his orthodoxy on this article. 
Now Jerome, Catalog., c. 61 b , expressly attests that Hip 
polytus wrote a work on Antichrist and the Resurrection . 
Photius also has given his testimony to the same work, (Bib- 
lioth., cod. 202,) where, after mentioning an interpretation of 
Daniel, published by Hippolytus, and marking it with his 
censure, he subjoins the following words : "We also read 
another treatise of his on Christ and Antichrist ; in which both 
the same kind of style and expression is conspicuous, and 

the thoughts are of simple and primitive character 1 / There l apx"6- 
are, however, amongst the moderns, certain learned men who rp011 
deny this work to be by Hippolytus, confidently enough, 
but in my judgment, on very slender grounds; nay, such 

x Compare also the words of Justin StoV^ro, aKaraX-n^iav, inprincipalita- 

Martyr, which we have before quoted tern, infactionem, infinitatem, sempi- 

in chap. 2 of this book, 2, near the ternitatem, incomprehensibilitatem, ut 

end, [p. 405.] GRABE. vere, licet barbare, vertit Anastasius.] 

f Apud Anastasium Bibliothec. in b [vol. ii. p. 887.] 

Collect., fragm. Ix. p. 228. [Hippol. ffwaveyvcaaOrj avrov Kal erepos \6- 

Op., vol. i. p. 229.] 70? irepl Xpurrov Kal at/Ttxpio Tou* ej> y 

z [See above, bookii. chap. 8. 3 5. T^re avr^ ru>v \6yuv t Se a Siairpfirei, Kal 

pp. 208, sqq.] TO TUV vorip-aTcav a.irXov(TTp6v re Kal 

8 [avapxia-v, ayevrjaiai/, aireipiav, at- apx^orpoirov. [Phot. cod. 202.] 

474 Work on Antichrist attributed to St. Hippolytus. 

ON THE as, if more accurately examined, militate against themselves. 
C N T T E Y T oF~ In the first place, the style of the Greek is displeasing to 
THE SON, them, and the fact that the book begins with eireiBrf yap d . 
[597] This objection, however, Philip Labbe 6 justly derided as "a 
novel and unheard-of charge." Indeed, besides that those 
who are acquainted with this kind of literature well know 
that it is vain to expect a very polished style of Greek from 
all the ecclesiastical writers in that language, Photius, who 
had read the undoubted writings of Hippolytus, expressly 
informs us (cod. 121 f ) "that his style does not affect the 
Attic turn." And in another passage (cod. 202s), he says, 
speaking again of the style of Hippolytus, " He pays no great 
regard to the Attic rules." Besides, these critics are offended 
that in this work there are to be found many vain conjec 
tures about the birth and the life of Antichrist; for instance, 
that Antichrist will not be a man, but a demon endued 
with human form. But who knows not that the writers of 
those times taught many very absurd things about Anti 
christ, as [they well might] on [so] obscure a subject? 
And of Hippolytus, Photius expressly testifies, in the codex 
last cited, that in his interpretation of Daniel, where he also 
treats of Antichrist 11 , "he states many things after the 
ancient fashion and not according to what was afterwards 
more accurately defined." Nay, further, in speaking of this 
very work, on Antichrist, Photius in the same passage, as we 
have heard, notices that there is in it " a great simplicity and 
a primitive character of thought ," where TO aTrXovv, " sim 
plicity," is opposed as is usual with the Greeks, to TO d/cpi- 
/3e?, "accuracy." Besides, it was the more usually received 
opinion of the doctors in the ancient Church, that Antichrist 
would be conceived by the evil spirit. Accordingly, this very 
thing was taught as an undoubted and settled point by the 
truly admirable St. Martin, [as recorded] in Sulpicius Severus, 
[598] Dialog, ii. 16. And the author of the Treatise on Antichrist 11 , 

^ d [This is the argument of H. Gro- 0e<r,uot/s Svfftoirt irai. [cod. 202.] 

tius and And. Rivet. B.] h vo \\k apxaioTp6Trws, Kal OVK els rb 

e De Script. Eccles., torn. i. p. 471. forcpov 5i7?Kpt/3a>,ueW, KaraAc ?"* 

* [i-V Se fydfflV aaQ-fis e ori Kal M- [Ibid.] 

acnvos, Kal fcrlprrre*, et 3 /cot] irpbs rbv ! [$} re avr^j ra>v *6ycav i 8e a Hiairpe- 

ArriKbv OVK eTna^-pe^erou \6yov. Tret, Kal] rb rcev vor)fj.druv airAovarepdv 

re Kal apx^rpoirof. [Ibid.] 

S TOVS ATTIKOVS 6Wi [qu. otfrt] juaAa k Diabolus simul introibit in uterum 

Objection to its genuineness, replied to. 475 

in Augustine, writes thus of the conception of Antichrist ; BOOK m. 
"The devil will at the same time enter into the womb of his CHA P 4 VI11 
mother, and will fill her wholly, encompass her wholly,, hold HlpPOLy _ 
her wholly, and possess her wholly, within and without." Tus - 
What shall we say to the fact 1 that Irenseus (of whom, as 1 quid? 
has been said, Hippolytus is reported to have been a hearer) i^fjus 6 
delivered the same opinion ? For he makes the following &c. 
statements concerning Antichrist, book v. 25 ; " For he shall 
come, receiving all the power of the devil, not as a just 
king, nor as a lawful one in subjection to God; but im 
pious, and unjust, and without law, as an apostate, and 
unrighteous, and a murderer, as a thief, summing up in 
himself 2 the apostasy of the devil." These things, there- 2 in se re- 
fore, afford no slight proof that this is a genuine treatise ca P ltulans - 
of Hippolytus. Lastly, they object that the writer affirms 
that the souls of men existed from all eternity 3 ; which 3 a saeculis. 
was an invention of Origen s. But even from this I seize 
on an argument of no small weight, to prove that Hip 
polytus is really the author of the book. For that Origen 
was at one time a hearer of Hippolytus, is certain from 
Jerome m , who says that Hippolytus himself in a certain 
homily " intimates that he is speaking in the Church, in 
the presence of Origen." It is no wonder, therefore, if 
Hippolytus and Origen had some opinions in common. 
But the ancient ecclesiastical writers have also with great 
unanimity handed down that Hippolytus was a disciple of 
Clement of Alexandria. Now it appears from Strom., 
book i., and more clearly from book iii., as Huet also has 
observed, that Clement favoured that doctrine of Plato re 
specting the pre-existence of the soul. From this Clement, 221 
therefore, Hippolytus and Origen, who both were his disci 
ples, (although Hippolytus was the senior in that school,) [599] 
alike derived that dogma. To say all then in one word; 

matris ejus, . . . et totam earn replebit, legitimus ; sed impius, et injustus, et 

totam circumdabit, totam tenebit, et sine lege, quasi apostata, et iniquus, 

totam interius exteriusque possidebit. et homicida, quasi latro, diabolicam 

[This treatise some ascribe to Alcuin, apostasiam in se recapitulans. [ 1, 

others to Rabanus Maurus. See Au- p. 322.] 

gust. Op. Append, vol. vi. pp. 242, m Catal.,c. 61. [irposofj-iXiav delaude 

243. B.] Domini Salvatoris, in qua,] praesente 

1 Hie enim omnem suscipiens dia- Origene, se loqui in Ecclesia significat. 

boli" virtutem, veniet non quasi rex [vol. ii. p. 887.] 
Justus, nee quasi in subjectione Dei 

476 Extract from the treatise on Antichrist. 

ON THE every thing in the treatise on Antichrist does so well agree 
^0^ with Hippolytus, that, even if the title did not intimate it, 
THE SON, those of keener perception might easily of themselves dis 
cern that it was really the production of Hippolytus". 

5. Let us now hear out of this book a most express tes 
timony to the co-eternity of the Son. In it then Hip- 
polytus introduces the saints thus addressing the Lord 
Christ in the last judgment; "Terrible One, when saw 
we Thee naked, and clothed Thee ? Immortal One, wften 
saw we Thee a stranger and took Thee in? Thou Lover 
of man, when saw we Thee sick or in prison and came unto 
Thee? Thou art the ever existing: Thou art He that with 
the Father hast no beginning, and with the Spirit art co- 
f rf eternal : Thou art He, that out of nothing 1 hast created all 
things I" Here you see that Hippolytus expressly attributes 
to the Son also the same [property to be] without begin- 
ning 2 , which the Father has; just as in the fragments in 
Anastasius, and by Hippolytus master, Clement p of Alex 
andria, the Lord Christ is declared to have been made with- 
[600] out beginning 3 . You may also observe in this passage the 
full and perfect Trinity described, namely, Three Persons, the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, co-existent from eter 
nity. It is, therefore, manifest that Hippolytus, however he 
might have entertained wild notions in other respects, was 
perfectly free from those of Arius. 
NOVA- 6. Of the Antenicene fathers, whom we mentioned, as 

appearing to deny the eternity of the Son, "when in reality 
they did not deny it, there now remains but one, Novatian, 
or the author of the treatise on the Trinity published among 
the works of Tertullian. As this author is of no great au 
thority in the Church, there is no need that we trouble our 
selves much about him. Let us, however, hear what he has 

n [Nearly all critics are now agreed thor. B.] 

that this treatise, De Consummatione <o/3epe, ir6re ore i So^ei/ yv/j.vbv, /cat 

mundi et de Antichristo, fyc., must ab- irepte)8aAoAtej/ ; aOdvare, Tr6re ffe t5o/j.ev 

solutely be decided not to be a work of eW, Kal awnydyo^v ; (piXavdpcaiTe, 

Hippolytus, (see his works, vol. i. Ap- Trore (re ^o^v affQevri rj eV (j>v\aKrj, Kal 

pend., p. 8j) and that what Jerome ^A0 0/ uei/ irpbs ere ; ab el 6 aei fr* ffb e? 

and Photius attest, that a book, On 6 avvdvapxos r$ Uarpl Kal o-vvaftios T$ 

Antichrist, was really written by Hip- irj/erf/Mwr ab e? 6 e K ^ ovrcav TO TT^TO 

poiytus, must be understood of another wo^eros. BibL Patr., torn. xii. p. 605. 

treatise, which has been published by [vol. i. Append., p. 26. 43.] 

Fabncius, vol. i. p. 4, &c., and which P [See above, ch. 2. 6. p. 409, 

excites no doubts as to its real au- notes f, g.] 




Novatian on the generation of the Son. 477 

written on this subject in chap. 31 of his book on the Trinity. BOOK m. 
In that place, then, after speaking of God the Father, he C ^ A l_ V 6 i 
subjoins these words respecting the Son of God^ : "Of NOVA- 
whom," (that is of God the Father,) " when He Himself TIAN - 
willed, the Word, the Son, was born ; who is not taken in 
[the sense of] a sound of stricken air, or a tone of voice 
forced from the lungs ; but is acknowledged in [the sense 
of] the substance of a power put forth by God. The secrets 
of His sacred and divine nativity neither apostle hath learned, 
nor prophet ascertained, nor angel perceived, nor creature 
known; to the Son alone are they known, who knows the 
secrets of the Father. He, therefore, being begotten of the 
Father, is always in the Father ; I say always/ however, in 
such sense as to shew that He was not unborn but born. 
Yet He who is before all time, must be said to have been 
always in the Father. For time cannot be assigned to Him 
who is before all time. For He is always in the Father, lest 
the Father be not always the Father. Since also the Father 
in a certain sense is antecedent to Him, because it is neces 
sary that He should be in some sort prior, in that He is the 
Father ; since He who knows no origin must needs be in 
some way antecedent to Him who has an origin. " After a 
few words there follow ; " He, therefore, when the Father [601] 
willed, proceeded from the Father ; both He, who was in the 
Father, proceeded from the Father ; and He who was in the 
Father, because He was from the Father, was afterwards with 
the Father, because He proceeded from the Father, that is 
to say, that Divine Substance, whose name is the Word, 
through whom all things were made and without whom 

q Ex quo, (Deo Patre,) quando ipse qui ante tempus est. Semper enim in 

voluit, Sermo Filius natus est, qui non Patre, ne Pater non semper sit Pater, 

in sono percussi aeris, aut tono coa.ctae Quia et Pater ilium etiain quadam ra- 

de visceribus vocis accipitur, sed in tione praecedit, quod necesse est quo- 

substantia prolatae a Deo virtutis ag- dammodo prior sit, qua Pater sit. Quo- 

noscitur. Cujus sacrae et divinse na- niam aliquo pacto antecedat necesse 

tivitatis arcana nee apostolus didicit, est eum qui habet originem, ille qui 

nee prophetes comperit, nee angelus originem nescit. . . . Hie ergo, quando 

scivit, nee creatura cognovit ; Filio soli Pater voluit, processit ex Patre ; et qui 

nota sunt, qui Patris secreta cognovit. in Patre fuit, processit ex Patre ; et qui 

Hie ergo cum sit genitus a Patre, sem- in Patre fuit, quia ex Patre fuit, cum 

per est in Patre. Semper autem sic Patre postmodum fuit, quia ex Patre 

dico, ut non innatum, sed natum pro- processit ; substantia scilicet ilia di- 

bem. Sed qui ante omne tempus est, vina, cujus nomen est Verbum, per 

semper in Patre fuisse dicendus est. quod facta sunt omnia, et sine quo fac- 

Nec enim tempus illi assignari potest, turn est nihil. [p. 729.] 

478 Novatian asserts that the Son always existed in the Father; 

ON THE nothing was made." This writer, whoever he was, does in- 

CO-ETER- deed express himself in a most perplexed manner ; but still 

THE SON. he not obscurely makes such statements, as to shew that his 

~ view was the same as that of the writers whom we have just 

before mentioned. 

7. He says that the Son was in a certain sense born from 
some beginning. But, in the first place, he calls that na 
tivity a procession (TrpoeXevo-is, a going forth), as Athe<na- 
goras called it, a going forth and a procession of One who 
was in the Father before He proceeded from the Father; 
moreover, a procession of One who was in such wise always 
in the Father as that we must on that account say posi 
tively that the Father has always been a Father, and con 
sequently He Himself always a Son. His words are clear; 
" He, therefore, being begotten of the Father, is always in 
the Father;" and, "for He is always in the Father, lest 
the Father be not always a Father ;" and, again, ( He 
who was in the Father proceeded from the Father." The 
procession, therefore, of which the author is speaking, 
does not hinder but that the Father has always, and* so 
before that procession, been a Father, and in consequence, 
the Son always a Son; but Father and Son necessarily make 
two persons. In the second place, he expressly says, that, 
" the Son was before all time," as also a little after in the 
same chapter, he says r , " He who received the beginning of 
His nativity before all time from Him who hath no origin." 
By time, however, the author did not at all understand that 
succession of moments which begins and is measured from 
the motion of the heavenly bodies ; nor consequently did he 
mean to say merely, that the Son was before all time, be 
cause He proceeded from the Father before every creature, 
[602] and therefore before the sun, and moon, and other lights of 
heaven ; but when he says, that the Son was before all time, 
he attributes to Him a duration which has neither begin 
ning nor end. For it is manifestly in this sense that he 
asserts that the Son existed before all time, because even 
before His very procession from the Father, and always, 
222 He was in the Father; and that in such sense as that 

r Qui ex eo qui originem non habet, principium nativitatis ante omne tempus 
accepit. [p. 730.] 

he held a twofold nativity, eternal and also in time. 479 

the Father even then and always was a Father, and Him- BOOK m. 
self consequently a Son, as has been just now observed. CH A g 
Hence, he does not say, (observe 1 ) that the Son proceeded NOVA- 
from the Father, but that He was (that is to say, [was] T1AN - 
in the Father), before all time. For he places the pro 
cession of the Son, of which he is speaking, in time, but 
His existence before all time. But yet, you will say, he 
asserts that the Son received the beginning of nativity 
from the Father before all time; and he calls the proces 
sion of the Son His nativity. I answer, that this author, 
together with Tertullian, whom he almost always follows, 
seems to lay down a twofold nativity of the Son, in that He 
is God ; one, whereby He existed from eternity in God the 
Father and from Him, as the co-eternal offspring of the 
eternal Mind; the other, that whereby He went forth from 
God the Father when He willed, to create the world, and 
that going forth of His this author, following Tertullian, calls 
a procession. For, as he says that the Son by reason of 
this procession was in a certain sense born, so did he ac 
knowledge another nativity of the Son prior to that, a 
[nativity] true, and properly so called, and so eternal. 
This I gather from those words ; " He, therefore, being be 
gotten of the Father, is always in the Father; I say al 
ways, however, in such sense as to shew that He was not 
unborn but born ;" and again ; " For He is always in the 
Father, lest the Father be not always a Father." Now, 
that the Son always was in the Father, he affirms in this 
sense (as I have already observed), that He was in the 
Father before His procession ; which is clear from the words 
which presently follow; "He who was in the Father pro 
ceeded from the Father/ From which I infer that according [603] 
to our author, the Son, even so far forth as He existed in 
the Father, before His procession and always, was born of 
the Father, and was His Son. For when He says that the Son 
was always in the Father, even before His procession, not as 
unborn but as born, he shews that the Son was born even 
before His procession. And when he proves that the Son 
always, even before His procession, was in the Father, on 
this ground, that otherwise the Father would not always 
have been a Father; he manifestly intimates that, even 



480 The Father anterior to the Son in causation, not in time. 

THE before the procession of the Son, the Father was always a 
Father; which surely He could not have been, without a 

THE SON. g on b orn O f jjim. And this very thing the author seems 
also to teach a little further on in the same chapter, where 
he thus writes 8 ; "Whatsoever He (the Son) is, He is not of 
Himself, because neither is He unborn, but He is of the 
Father, because He is begotten ; whether as He is the Word, 
or as He is Power, or as He is Wisdom, or as He is Light, or 
as He is the Son." The meaning of this is ; the Son of God, 
whatever notion you conceive of Him, is of God the Father 
and begotten of Him ; therefore He is begotten of the Father, 
not merely in that He is the Word of God, put forth, that is 

cum voce. to say, with vocal utterance 1 in the beginning of the worldy (in 
the sense in which, as we shall by and by see, the author ex 
plains himself in another passage,) but even in that He is 
the Wisdom of God, such as it was eternally. Now he says 
that the Son received of the Father the beginning of His 
first nativity before all time ; but not so that of the latter. 
Consult by all means what we have said below upon Ter- 
tullian. This, however, seems to be contradicted by those 
words, "Because the Father also is in a certain sense 
antecedent to Him." But there the author means the 
antecedence not of time but of origin. This he intimates 
clearly enough, when he subjoins, " because it is necessary 
that He should be in some sort prior, in that He is the 

[604] Father; since He who knows no origin must needs be in 
some way antecedent to Him who has an origin." Upon 
which words Pamelius rightly makes this note ; " From this 
it is certain that when he says the Father precedes, is prior, 
and antecedent to [the Son,] he simply means this, as he 
subjoins, IN THAT HE is THE FATHER." And thus does Pe- 
tavius himself understand Novatian, De Trinit. ii. 2, 17, and 
vi. 11, 11. 

8. But I candidly confess that this passage of the author 
admits of being explained in another way, so that even the 
procession, of which he is speaking, should be understood of 
the eternal nativity of the Son from the Father; an expla- 

Quiequid est [Filius], non ex se bum est, sive dum virtus est, sive dum 
est, quia nee mnatus est, sed ex Patre sapientia est, sive dum lux est, sive 
est, quia gemtus est; sive dum Ver- dum Filius est. [Ibid., p. 730.] 

Or, it may be understood of the Eternal Generation. 481 

nation which Pamelius and others adopt. And according to BOOK HI. 
this interpretation, when the Son is said to be born of the ^/yl^ 
Father when He willed, that willing of the Father must be 

understood to have been eternal. And then these words, TIAN * 
" He, therefore, being begotten of the Father, is always in 
the Father ; I say, always, however, in such sense as to shew 
that He was not unborn but born" . . . "because also the 
Father in a certain sense is antecedent to Him," &c., must 
be thus explained : the Son, although He is begotten of the 
Father, is yet co-eternal with the Father ; yet is He not in 
such sense co-eternal with the Father as to be unborn, like 
the Father, but He derives His origin from the Father; in 
which respect the Father is antecedent to Him, and prior to 
Him, seeing that He who begets is, in our way of viewing 1 } ratione. 
and conception, prior to Him whom He Himself has begotten. 
Lastly, the words, " He who was in the Father proceeded 
from the Father," must be thus explained : He who pro 
ceeded from the Father must be conceived by the mind 2 to 2 ratione. 
have existed in the Father before He proceeded from the 
Father ; although, as He was eternally in the Father, so from 
eternity did He proceed from the Father. But I think the 
former explanation preferable, both for other reasons, and 
especially because it is more in conformity with the notions 
of Tertullian, which the author has almost every where ex 
pressed. But in whatever way you explain the procession, 
[still,] inasmuch as the author expressly teaches that the 
Son was in the Father always, before any time which can be 
assigned or conceived, and that in such sense as that the [605] 
Father has always been a Father ; and accounts it a mani 
fest absurdity [to suppose] that the Father has not always 
been a Father; it is most certain that he altogether shrunk 
from the Arian blasphemy respecting the Son of God, " there 
was a time when He was not." 

9. And in order that this may appear still more clearly, 223 
it should be especially observed, that this author expressly 
says that the Son in such wise proceeded from the Father, as 
that He was equally 3 in the Father, as well before as after 3 pariter. 
that procession. These are his own words ; " He, therefore, 
when the Father willed, proceeded from the Father; He 
who was in the Father proceeded from the Father ; and He 


482 The Son was in the Father alike before and after His 

ON THE who was in the Father, because He was from the Father, was 
C NI"TYOF" afterwards with the Father, because He proceeded from the 
THE SON. Father ; that is to say, that Divine Substance, whose name 
is the Word, through whom all things were made." And 
here we must in the first place observe the reasoning by 
which this author proves that the Son, as well before as after 
the procession of which he is speaking, was in the Father, 
and so was eternal. " He was in the Father/ he jsays, 
1 ex. "because He was from 1 the Father;" and again, "He was 

afterwards with the Father, because He proceeded from the 
Father." For, it seems, he reasons thus ; whatsoever is of 
God Himself is co-eternal with God Himself; as It was in 
God from eternity, so will It abide in Him to eternity ; 
inasmuch as the divine essence and nature is always the 
same and unchangeable. Hence also in a preceding chapter 
(c. 23) he proves that the Son was not made, but was eternal 
with God, from this, that He proceeded from God*; "If 
" Christ," he says, " be merely man, how is it that He says, 
1 1 came forth from God, and am come / since it is certain 
that man was made by God, and did not proceed from God ? 
But in a manner in which man did not proceed from God, 
in such wise did the Word of God proceed, of whom it is 
3 emctavit said, My heart hath breathed forth a good Word 2 / which, 
verbum Um sm ce it is of God, is also justly [believed to be] with God ; 
bonum. an( j w hich, because it was not put forth to no purpose 3 , is 
a [606] j us tly [believed to be] Maker of all things." Here the ex 
pression to proceed (or come forth) from God/ which He 
attributes to the Word, he manifestly contrasts with to be 
made, which is applicable to men and to all other created 
beings ; now that is said to be made, which, when before 
it was not, has received from another that it should be and 
utessetet exist 4 . According to our author, therefore, the Word which 
proceeded from the Father, and, because He proceeded from 
the Father, never was not in being. By the same reasoning 

5 apud. he proves that the Word is and abides with 5 God, that is, in 6 

6 in. 

1 Si homo tantummodo Christus, quo dictum est, Emctavit cor meum 

quomodo dicit, Ego ex Deo prodii et Verbum bonum; quod quoniam ex Deo 

veni; cum constet horninem a Deo fac- est, merito et apud Deum est; quod- 

tum esse, non ex Deo processisse ? Ex que quia non otiose prolatum est, me- 

Ueo autem homo quomodo non pro- rito omnia facit. [p. 721.1 
cessit, sic Dei Verbum processit, de 


going forth. That which is in God, is in Him eternally. 483 

God, eternally, because, I mean, He is from 1 God. " Since/ 
he says, "He is from 2 God, He is also justly [believed to be] CHA P> 9 VIII< 
with God." In short, this is the meaning of the author ; NV^ 
that which is and has proceeded from God, cannot be made, TIAN - 
but has always been in God ; and that which has proceeded 2 
from God, always is, and will be, with God; or, in other 
words, whatsoever is and has proceeded from God Himself, 
has been in God Himself; but whatsoever has been in God 
Himself has always been and will always be in Him. Of 
this reasoning, as I have said, the foundation is, the eternity 
and unchangeableness of the divine nature. But I could 
wish the reader to pause 3 with me awhile on these words ; 3 haereat. 
"And which (Word,) because it was not put forth to no 
purpose, is justly [believed to be] Maker of all things;" 
where the author seems to have meant that the Word, which 
always was in God, was put forth from God at a certain 
time, almost like a human word, which being first conceived 
in the heart is then put forth by the tongue. But to what 
purpose was the Word of God put forth ? Not without pur 
pose, he says, not in vain; but that He might make all 
things. That Divine Substance, therefore, whose name is 
the Word, (to use our author s expressions,) always was with 
God; but according to this author, He was not the Word 
(Verbum, sive Sermo) of God before He was put forth from 
God with that Almighty FIAT by which this universe was 
created. Nor yet was [that substance] so put forth from 
God at that time, as not always to remain with God and in 
God. You will understand this better when we come to [607] 
Tertullian, whom our author, as it were, aped. Meanwhile 
let us proceed to other points. 





ON THE 1. IN the four chapters immediately preceding, we have 
CO-ETER- i^jj O p eil the views of certain Antenicene fathers, which, 


THE SON. although they seem to be repugnant to the approved and 
received doctrine of the primitive Church respecting the co- 
eternity of the Son, are yet in no way really repugnant to it. 
In the present chapter, in order that a clearer light may 
be thrown on what we have already said,, we propose to 
demonstrate the following proposition. 


Certain Catholic Doctors, who lived after the rise of the 
Arian controversy, and resolutely opposed themselves to the 
heresy of the Arian fanatics, did not shrink from the view of 
the primitive fathers, whom we last mentioned, or rather the 
mode in which they explained their view. For they them- 
1 pi ogres- selves also acknowledged that going forth 1 of the Word, who 
sionem. ex i ste( j a i wavs w i tn Qod the Father, from the Father, (which 
some of them also called His avy/cardfiacns, that is, His con 
descension,) in order to create this universe ; and confessed 
that, with respect to that going forth also, the Word Him 
self was, as it were, born of God the Father, and is in the 
[Col. i. 15.] Scriptures called the First-born of every creature. 

[608] 2. This proposition receives no obscure confirmation from 
the anathema of the Nicene Creed itself, in which the holy 
fathers condemn the Arians for teaching concerning the Son 
of God u , that "there was a time when He was not, and 
before He was begotten He was not." Often before now 

u 7>i> 7TOT6, ore ovK ^v, itol iTplv 7ej/r?07j/c, OVK ?>v. [See above, p. 13.] 

Meaning of the words, Before He ivas begotten He was not. 485 

(frankly to confess the truth) has wonder arisen in my mind, BOOK in. 
as to what the Arians meant by that saying of theirs, " The c ?iIl3 X 
Son before He was begotten was not." That it is not to be ~~ 
explained of the nativity of Christ of the most Blessed Vir 
gin, is clear; for the Arians never denied that the Son 
of God was in being before [His birth of] Mary; nay, they 
always of themselves confessed that He existed before the 
creation of the world ; they are speaking, therefore, of a nativ 
ity of the Son which preceded the creation of this universe. 
What then, I ask, is the meaning of this saying, "The Son 
was not, or existed not, before He was begotten of the Father, 
antecedently to the creation of the world ?" I have indeed 
now no doubt whatever, that this statement of the Arians 
was made in opposition to the view of those Catholics, who 
taught that the Son, indeed, a little before the creation of 
the world, proceeded forth in a certain inexplicable manner 
from the Father, for the creation of the universe ; and that 
in respect of this going forth also, He is called in Scripture 
the Son of God, and, the First-born; but that He did not 
then first begin to be, but had always existed with the 
Father as His Word, and so as the co-eternal offspring of 
the eternal mind. As many of the fathers who were present 
at the Nicene council had eagerly embraced this explanation 
of the doctrine, and the rest were well aware that there was 
a catholic sense contained in it, they all with one consent 
condemned the Arians who condemned it. 

3. Eusebius, indeed, in an Epistle to his church, pre 
served in Theodoret, towards the conclusion, adduces both [609] 
the interpretation which I have rejected, as his own, and 
another by Constantine x ; "Moreover also," he says, "it was 
not thought unreasonable that the proposition, Before He 
was begotten He was not/ should be anathematized, because 
it is indeed acknowledged by all that He was the Son of 
God, even before His generation after the flesh. And al- i r ~ 

ready our emperor most dear to God was establishing 1 by /f T<r/cctJ - 
argument His being before all ages, even in respect of His " ^225 

* er/ jttV rb ayaflejuartfeo-flai rb, ITpb /caret ffdpita yevvriveus. f?5?j Se 6 6eo(j>i- 

rov ytvvr\6riva.i, OVK $v, OVK &TOITOV eVo- Ae crra-ros TJ/JLCOV /SaazAews TC? \6yq> /care- 

fj.i<r07), ro5 irapa -naai ^ue// 6/j.o\oyf?(r6ai, (r/ceva^e, Kal Kara r?V evQeov O.VTOV y4v- 

slvai avrbv vibv rov &fov Kal irpb rrjs vt\O(.v rb irpb iravruv altavcav eTvat avrov 


486 Two explanations in a passage attributed to Eusebius ; 

divine generation, seeing that even before He was actually 1 
co -ETER- begotten, He was virtually 2 in being in the Father, in a man 
ner unbegotten 3 ; the Father being always a Father, as also 
always a King and Saviour, and being all things virtually, 
and ever existing in the same respects and in the same 
TwHn?" manner 4 ." But this passage appears to be spurious, and to 
g uadam have been inserted in Eusebiiis epistle by some impostor, 
?atione. (it would seem an Arian.) For in the first place, the \\hole 

tnis P assa g e * s wanting in Socrates, an historian of the 
greatest credit, and earlier than Theodoret ; nor is it found in 
Epi p| ianius Scholasticus. In the next place, although two 
interpretations of the words of the Nicene Creed are stated 
here, yet both are simply absurd and foolish, and unworthy 
of so very learned a man as Eusebius ; whilst the latter ex 
planation, (which the writer of the passage delivers as Con- 
stantine s, not without a tacit approbation of it,) namely, 

5 potentia. that the Son was in being virtually 5 in the Father before 

6 ex. He actually came into existence from 6 the Father, is not 

only absurd, but even heretical, and utterly overthrows the 
[610] eternity of the Son. For all created beings also, before 
they were produced actually, were virtually in being in 
God; yet are they not on that account said to be eter 
nal. But it is abundantly evident from all his writings, 
that Eusebius always acknowledged the actual subsistence 
(as they express it) of the Son of God from eternity, hold 
ing, as he did, most closely to the teaching of Origen. 
Hence Socrates speaks thus with confidence of the ac 
cusers of Eusebius y ; "For they cannot shew," he says, 
"that Eusebius attributes a beginning of existence to the 
7 /caroxp^- Son of God, although they find him using 7 in his writings 
HTtothe^ 6 ex P ress i n s which belong to the economy 8 ." I may 
Son in- here remark, in passing, that in these words Socrates also 
indicates one, and that not the least, of the causes from 
which persons in general have regarded Eusebius as an 
Arian, although in other respects, in his writings, he 

eTrel Kal irplv evepytia ysvvT]Qriva.i, 8vvd- 7 ovre yap X ovffl Se?|ot, tin Eutre - 

fj.i i\v fv T< riarpl ayev^rcas, ovros fiios apxV T ^ s virdp^ws SiSaxn T v!<p 

TOV Uarpbs det Uarpbs, us Kal fiacri- rov &fou, KO.V rals TTJJ oiKot/0/j.ias Ae|e- 

Ae a>s dei Kal o-wrfjpos, Kal Suvd^t irdi^ra aiv eV TO?S jStjSAiots fvpiffKOvcriv ainbu 

OJ/TOS, det re Kal Kara ra aura Kal d>- Kmaxp<a^vov. Eccl. Hist. ii. 21, near 

o-aimos exoi Tos. Eccl. Hist. a. 12. the end. 
[p. 40.] 

(Eusebius not an Arian ; improbability of the statements ;) 487 

throughout acknowledges the true and eternal divinity of BOOK in. 
the Son. For in his works he so urges against the Sabel- CH P 3. IX 
lians, of whom he was a most energetic opponent, and re 
peats and inculcates again and again, till one is almost 
weary of them, those things which relate to the economy 
of the Son, (and, I add, to His subordination to the Father 
as His author and principle,) that he appears to have slipped 
into the opposite impiety of Arius, from which in fact he 
was always far removed. And this every one will acknow 
ledge to be most true who shall study the writings of Euse 
bius with care, and in an uncontroversial temper; and, if 
he be careful to observe this, he will also be able to give a 
ready answer to all those passages, which Petavius, on the 
Trinity, book i. c. 11, has largely heaped together to prove 
that Eusebius was an Arian. Accordingly, Eusebius him 
self, in an Apology which he sent to all the orthodox 
bishops, openly professed (as Gelasius Cyzicenus, on the 
Nicene Council, book ii. ch. 1, relates) that if he had ever 
put forth or written anything which savoured ever so little 
of the doctrine of Arius, he had put it forth and written it z , 
" not according to his (Arms ) impious notion, but through a 
careless and unguarded 1 simplicity," being wholly intent, * air 
that is, on attacking the Sabellian heresy. But I return 7 u 
to the point from which I have slightly digressed. Fur 
ther, what person in his senses can believe that the Em 
peror Constantiue openly established that interpretation by 
argument in the council of Nice, and that consequently 
he wished the words of the anathema to be received in 
that sense ? Certainly the council of Nice would have ef 
fected nothing against the Arians by their anathema, if 
they had allowed the terms of it to be understood and 
subscribed to in such a sense. Nay, the fathers would have 
openly gone over into the Arian camp, if they had admitted 
this meaning, that the Son of God had existed from eter 
nity, not actually, but only virtually a . For the doctrine 
of the consubstantiality, as sanctioned by those fathers, 
would have been of no service at all to the catholic cause, 

1 ov IJLTJV Kara. rV a<re#7) 1/ceiVou cy- adopted by Theognis, a thorough-paced 

voiav, aAA* ^ cnrepifpyov aTrA^rrj-ros. Arian, according to Philostorgius, Hist. 

[Gelas. Cyz. de Syn. Nic.Jib.ii. c. 1.] Eccl. ii. 15. 

a Indeed this very interpretation was 

488 It seems interpolated, yet in part known to St. Athanasius. 

o\ THE seeing that the true divinity of the Son cannot stand with- 
out His eternity. Some one perhaps may say, that Constan- 
t i ne argued for that particular meaning for the sake of the 
Arian bishops who were present at the council, and that they 
accordingly subscribed to the anathema as thus explained, 
but that the far greater part of the council protested, and 
resolutely maintained the true and catholic sense. This 
idea, however, is inconsistent with the express testimony of 
Eusebius himself, in his undoubted work, the Life of Con- 
stantine, iii. 13, where he says that the bishops of the coun 
cil were at length, by the influence of Constantine, made b 

[612] " of one mind and of one consent on all the controverted 
226 points/ that is, that, at least as far as profession went, 
they embraced the same meaning in every particular. Last 
ly, whoever will attentively read what goes before in Euse 
bius epistle, will readily perceive that the passage in ques 
tion does not well agree with it. For in that place Eusebius 
manifestly appears to have said all that he had to say on the 
subject of the anathema; and, consequently, to have quite 
finished his explanation of the Nicene Creed. The addi 
tional matter therefore which is subjoined, [treating] again 

epilogi. of this same anathema, down to the conclusion 1 of the epi 
stle, appears to have been attached to it by another hand. 
Nevertheless, that the former part of this passage was extant 
in the epistle of Eusebius, even in the time of Athanasius, is 
gathered, not obscurely, from his words respecting Eusebius, 
and that epistle of his, in his book on the Decrees of the 
council of Nice ; where, after stating that Eusebius, in an 
epistle to the Church of Csesarea, had declared his agree 
ment on the consubstantiality, and thus had openly confessed 
that he and his party had previously been in error, he 
adds c , "And he fell into a difficulty; for, as if excusing 
himself, he went on to charge the Arians, because, having 
made the statement, the Son was not before He was 
begotten/ they would not allow that He was in being, not 
even before His birth after the flesh." In these words it 

ci> novas Kai 6uo8<$|ous avrovs peiavwv, 6n yptyavres, ou/c l)v 6 vibs^r]Tovfj.ei>ois airaffi wore- irp\v yevvrjOTlvai, OVK tfOe\ov avrbv 

. [Vit. Const, iii. 13. J ouSe irpb TTJS Kara capita y 

c Kal 7reW06 rt 8eiy6v &s yap airo- p. 251. [ 3. vol. i. p. 211.] 
>V A- 

Evidence for Bp. Bull s interpretation of the clause, 489 

must be clear to any one that Athanasius glances at and BOOK m. 
notes as absurd, the interpretation of Eusebius which is con- 
tained in the very beginning of this passage. And this 
he also does in his treatise on the Synods of Ariminum 
and Seleucia d . But there will be no absurdity in it, if we 
say that Athanasius himself might have been deceived by 
some interpolated copy of Eusebius epistle, such as Theodoret 
afterwards followed. Although in neither of the passages [613] 
which we have cited, nor in any other place, so far as I 
remember, does Athanasius touch on that latter heretical 
interpretation; which he certainly would not (I think) have 
passed over in silence, if he had met with it in the epistle of 
Eusebius. Let the learned, however, judge of these points. 
This is most certain, that, whether Eusebius himself or some 
other be the author of that passage, both the explanations 
contained in it are utterly alien from the meaning of the 
Arians on the one hand, who alleged " that the Son of 
God was not before He was begotten/ and of the Nicene 
fathers on the other, who anathematized the Arians for 
making that statement. 

4. But that our interpretation is the true one is clear 
from the epistle of the Arian presbyters and deacons to the 
bishop of Alexandria, written before the council of Nice, 
which is extant in Athanasius and Hilary e . In it these 
Arians reckon amongst the heterodox such as said of the 
Son f , that " He who was before 1 , was afterwards begotten l rbv for 
[so as to be] a Son." They then go on to explain their * p repov 
own view in opposition to this assertion, in the following 
manner g ; "God indeed, being the cause 2 of all things, is 2 
alone 3 [in an absolute sense] without beginning ; but the 
Son, having been begotten by the Father independently of 
time, and created and founded before the worlds, WAS NOT 
BEFORE HE WAS BEGOTTEN, but having been begotten before 
all things independently of time, He alone subsisted 4 by the 4 
Father. For neither is He eternal, or co-eternal, or co- 


d p. 882. [p. 727.] x av(av ZO-TW avapxos novcararos 6 5e 

c Athan. de Synod. Arim. and Se- vibs axpovcas yevv^dels virb rov Uarpbs, 

leuc., p. 885. [ 16. pp. 729-30.] Hilar. /ecu npb aldaw KTi<T0eh Kal 0e/t6Atco0eJj, 

de Trin. iv. 36. [ 12. p. 883.] OVK i\v Trpb rov yevvriQrivai, a\\ axp6- 

f rbv ovra irporepof, vcrrepov yewy- vcas irpb irdvruv yvvi]6f}s, fj.6vos virb 

6evra els vl6v. [Athan. ibid., p. 729.] rov Harpbs virfffrt). ow5e yap ecrnv ai~ 

t 6 ebs airios r<av iravrwv rvy- Stos, ^ o~vva i5ios, fy ffvvayfvrjros r<f Ha- 






490 i. From the express statement of the Arians ; 

ingenerate 1 with the Father; neither has He His being 
simultaneously 2 with the Father, as some say [that] cor- 
relatives [have]/ (Father and Son, that is, of whom, the 
one being supposed, the other is of necessity supposed also,) 
"introducing two ingenerate principles; but as being One 3 
only and the principle of all things, so is God before all 
things; wherefore also He is before the Son." Here you see 
that statement respecting the Son of God which the Nicene 
fathers condemned, " He was not before He was begotten," 
is made and asserted in express terms by the Arians, by those 
same [Arians] who confessed in the same breath that the 
Son of God was begotten and created before the worlds; 
and that in opposition to those who maintained that, "He 
who was before, was afterwards begotten [so as to be] 
a Son;" that is, who, whilst they attributed to the Son 
of God a certain nativity, immediately antecedent to the 
creation of the world, yet denied that the Son then first 
began to exist, nay, rather strenuously contended that He 
had been in being, and had existed with His Father from 
everlasting. See also the Epistle of Arius to Eusebius of 
Nicomedia in Theodoret s Ecclesiastical History, i. 5, and 
Athanasius Orations against the Arians, ii. p. 329s. 

5. There are extant in the great Bibliotheca Patrum cer 
tain sermons bearing the name of Zeno, bishop of Verona, 
who is commonly said to have suffered martyrdom under 
the Emperor Gallienus, about the year of Christ 260 h . But 
the learned at this day are well nigh agreed, and facts them 
selves shew, that these sermons were written after the coun 
cil of Nice ; at which period likewise certain learned men 
have affirmed that Zeno himself nourished, and that not 
without very strong reasons, which you may read in vol. ii. 
of Philip Labbe, on Ecclesiastical Writers, under Zeno. 
They are moreover of opinion that he was called a martyr 
because he manfully endured much amid the storms of per 
secution raised by the Arians under Constantius. Three 

rpi- ouSe a/j.a. T$ Uarpl rb eli/at ex 6 * h [See the Dissertations prefixed to 

&s rives \eyovffi TO. irp6s TI, Suo aywf)- the edition of his works by the Ballc- 

"ovs^apxas elo-yyovfjievoi- oA\ us /m.ova.5 rini, Verona, 1739, Diss. ii. in which 

KCU apxy TrdvTcw, OVTWS 6 Qebs Trpb TTW- it is shewn that the writer of the 

TO>// eo-ri- 5tb K al Trpb TOV vlov 4(rrw. Tracts lived between A.D. 360 and 

[Ibid., p. 730.] 391.] 
* [Orat. i. 22. vol. i. p. 427.] 

ii. From the writings of Zeno, bishop of Verona. 491 
of these discourses are entitled, On the Eternal Gene- BOOK m. 


ration of the Son/ In the third of them the author writes 4i 5 . 
thus * ; " The Beginning 1 , my brethren, is unquestionably i pr inci- 
our Lord Christ ; who has been embraced before all ages by P ium> 
the Father, still, in whatever sense J2 , God within Himself, 2 utcunque. 
of blessed eternity, by the undivided fulness of His Spirit ; 
veiled under some mysterious 3 consciousness of His own ; not 3 nescio 
without the affection, but without the distinction 4 of a Son. ^J 
But with the view of drawing out the order of the things mine. 
which He had devised, ineffable Power and incomprehensible 
Wisdom breathes forth the Word, from the region of His 
heart; Omnipotence propagates Itself. Of God God is born, 
having the whole of the Father, taking away nothing from the 
Father, &c. But how He who went forth was begotten, it were 
madness to conjecture. For the Son attempers Himself on 
account of the nature of the creatures 5 , lest the mean estate 5 rerum. 
of this world should be unable to sustain the Lord of eter 
nal Majesty." A passage parallel to this you may read in 
the first discourse, where he thus speaks concerning the Son 
of God k : " Whom before all ages the Father embraced in 
the deep unsearchable secret place 6 of His own sacred mind, 6 arcano. 
and in a consciousness known only to Himself, not without 
the affection of, but without His being revealed 7 as a Son. ^revela- 
Therefore that ineffable and incomprehensible Wisdom pro- m 
pagates Wisdom ; Omnipotence propagates Omnipotence ; of 
God God is born ; of the Unbegotten the Only-begotten ; 
of the Alone the Alone ; of the Whole the Whole ; of the 
True the True; of the Perfect the Perfect; having the 

1 Principium, fratres, Dominus nos- lius, ne aeternae majestatis Dominum 

ter incontanter [al. incunctanter^ est non possit mundi istius mediocritas 

Christus, quern ante omnia ssecula sustinere. [Biblioth. Patr., vol. iii. p. 

Pater adhuc utcunque [in Biblioth. 386.] 

utrumque scribitur] in semetipso Deus j [utrumque is the reading of the 

beatae perpetuitatis, indiscreta Spiritus MSS. ; the Ballerini conjecture utcun- 

plenitudine, nescio qua sua conscientia que or utrinque, preferring the latter.] 

velatum,Filii non sine affectu, sed sine * Quern ante omnia saecula Pater in 

discrimine amplectebatur. Sed exco- profundo suae sacrae mentis arcano in- 

gitatarum ut ordinem instrueret reruin, suspicabili, ac sola sibi nota conscien- 

ineffkbilis [ilia] virtus incomprehensibi- tia, Filii non sine affectu, sed sine re- 

lisque sapientia e regione cordis eructat velamine amplectebatur. Igitur ineffa- 

Verbum; omnipotentiasepropagat. De bilis ilia incomprehensibilisque sapien- 

Deo nascitur Deus, totum Patris ha- tia sapientiam, omnipotentia omnipo- 

bens, nihil derogans Patri, &c tentiam propagat : de Deo nascitur 

Quomodo autem generatus sit, qui pro- Deus ; de ingenito unigenitus : de solo 

cessit, dementis est opinari. Namque solus; de toto totus ; de vero verus: 

temperat se propter rerum naturam Fi- de perfecto perfectus ; totum Patris ha- 


Zeno s catholicity shewn ; 




1 in nati- 

2 inquili- 

3 rerum 

THE whole of the Father, taking nothing away from the Father. 
He goes forth so as to be born 1 , who before He was born 
was [in being] in the Father." Lastly, he speaks in his 
second sermon in these words 1 : " Out of whose mouth His 
Only-begotten Son, the noble inhabitant of His heart 2 , went 
forth, in order that the world 3 , which was not, might be 
formed; having been from that time made visible, because 
He was about to visit the human race," &c. 

6. The words which I have cited, in themselves shew that the 
author was not an Arian. For he says that the Son was born 
God of God, Whole of Whole, True of True, Perfect of Perfect, 
having the whole of the Father, &c., which who among Arians 
could have endured seriously to affirm of the Son of God ? 
But now in these passages the author does indeed plainly 
attribute to the Son a certain generation and nativity which 
took place at the time when God the Father willed to create 
all things ; but he no less plainly acknowledges that the same 
Son had existed from eternity with the Father, and that as 
a Son. For, first, he says that Christ is incontanter, (i. e. 
without doubt,) the Beginning ; that is ; that than which there 
was nothing prior or more ancient. Next, he clearly teaches 
that the Father before all ages had the Son within Himself; 
and, further, embraced Him as a Son, although veiled under 
His own consciousness alone. Furthermore, he says that the 
Son was from everlasting the noble inhabitant of the heart 
of the Father, and, as being such, he calls Him the only-be 
gotten Son. Moreover, he expressly affirms that the Son 
was in being before He was generated in that way which he 
describes ; " He was," he says, " before He was begotten." 
Where you have the very same doctrine which the Arians 
denied, and as denying [it] were anathematized by the 
Nicene fathers. Besides, the author is so far from dreaming 
that the Son first began to exist through the nativity of 
which he speaks, that he teaches that nothing whatsoever 

bens, nihil derogans Patri. Procedit humanum genus visitaturus erat, &c. 

in nativitatem, qui erat antequam nas- [Ibid.] 

ceretur in Patre. [Ibid.] ["Or born." The Latin word 

Cujus ex ore, ut rerum natura, is nasceretur, by wbich tbe irpiv yev- 

quae non erat, fingeretur, prodivit uni- j/TjflTJi/cu of the Nicene anathema is 
genitus Filius, cordis ejus nobilis in- rendered.] 
quilinus ; exinde visibilis effectus, quia 

he held a two -fold generation, eternal, and in time. 493 

thence accrued to the Son ; moreover that the Son, while in BOOK m. 
this way He was begotten, and came forth from the Father, ^g 1 !^ 
"attempered Himself on account of the nature of the crea- 
tures, lest the mean estate of this world should be unable to 
sustain the Lord of eternal majesty." Of this condescen 
sion 1 of the Son, we shall by and by hear Athanasius himself l demis- 
speak. Lastly, the very title of the sermons, " On the Eter- S1 
nal Generation of the Son," sufficiently declares the mind of 
the author, namely, that he conceived Christ to have been 
from eternity the Son of the Father, begotten of Him ; for 
how could he have written of the eternal generation of the 
Son, who believed not in any eternal generation of the Son ? 
But, you will ask, where, in what place throughout these 
discourses has the author made mention of the eternal gene 
ration of the Son? I answer, in the passages which we have 
just now brought forward, where he says that the Father 
from everlasting had the Son within Himself, and embraced 
Him as His Son, &c. The author, undoubtedly, insists ra 
ther upon that nativity whereby the Son went forth from 
the Father to create the universe ; because this nativity was 
the setting forth and manifestation of that first and eternal 
[nativity,] so that the Son may properly be said to have 
been then first born unto us creatures. If, however, any 
one should find fault with the words " embraced without 
[any] distinction," as if, that is, the author had thereby 
meant that the Son, so far as He existed from everlasting 
with the Father, was undistinguished in person from the 
Father ; (which his over-suspicious temper suggested to Pe- 
tavius ;) let him bear in mind that the author has explained 
what he said in the passage which we quoted first, " He em 
braced without distinction," by these words in the second, 
" He embraced without revealing." The generation, there 
fore, which the author describes in these passages, is, as I 
have said, nothing else than the revelation of the Son, whom 
the Father embraced with Himself, and, so to speak, to Him 
self alone from eternity ; in other words, His going out of, 
and procession from, the Father, (that is, in operation,) in 
order to create the things which were not, and to manifest 
Himself to the creatures 2 , that is, to angels and men. * reb V s 


7. For the rest, that this author, whoever he was, acknow- [618] 

8 de Genesi. 

3 nasutior 

4 qui se di- 
gessit in 

5 recipro- 
cavit se 

6 Rather 
"the Son 
with the 


494 Further extracts from writings attributed to Zeno. 

ledged Christ in His higher 1 nature to be the co-eternal Son 
of the. eternal Father, and that there never was a time when 
the Son was not, we know for certain from other sources. 
For, in the first of the sermons concerning the Creation 2 
(that the author of these sermons was the same as the author 
of those other sermons on the Eternal Generation of the Son, 
any person of discernment 3 may at once perceive from the 
style itself) he expressly attributes the same original ^eter 
nity to the whole most sacred Trinity, the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Ghost; saying", "This is our God, who has 
distributed Himself into God 4 . This is the Father, who, 
His own state remaining unimpaired, reciprocated Himself 
wholly 5 into the Son , so as not to take away any thing from 
Himself. Lastly, the One rejoices in the Other, together 
with the fulness of the Holy Spirit, radiant with ONE ORIGI 
NAL ETERNITY/ Now who does not observe the agreement 
of the phrases and words in this passage with those places 
which we have quoted before from the sermons on the 
Eternal Generation of the Son ? There it was, " God is .born 
of God ;" here it is, " God has distributed Himself, into 
God ;" there it was, " having the whole of the Father, taking 
away nothing from the Father;" here it is, "The Father re 
ciprocated Himself wholly into the Son, so as not to take 
away any thing from Himself." Once more, mention was 
there made of " the fulness of the Spirit ;" and here also in 
like manner. The same writer in his sermon on that text, 
" When He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, 
even the Father," says, that the Father with the Son p6 "has 
one possession of an original and everlasting kingdom, one 
substance of co-eternity and omnipotence." Here again, 
who does not see that " the one possession of an original 
and everlasting kingdom" expresses the same in almost the 
same terms, as [do the words] in the former passage of his 
first sermon, on Creation, " one original eternity ?" And I 
know no reason why we should not believe that it is the 

n Hie est Deus noster, qui se diges- Patr., torn. ii. p. 367. [vol. iii. p. 359.] 

sit in Deum. Hie Pater, qui suo ma- [Bp. Bull has Ilium; Filium is 

nente integro statu totum se reciproca- the reading of the Bibliotheca.] 

vit in ilium, (Filium,) ne quid sibimet P Cum quo (sc. Patre) originalis 

derogaret. Denique alter in altero ex- perpetuique regni una possessio, coae- 

ultat, cum Spiritus Sancti plenitudine ternitatis omnipotentiaeque una suh- 

una originali aeternitaterenitens. Bibl. stantia. p. 424. [p. 386.] 

Const antine of a generation of the Son in time. 495 

same author also who is speaking in the first sermon of the BOOK m. 
Nativity of Christ, where, enumerating erroneous opinions ^jj g. 
respecting the Son of God, he puts this in the second place q : ~~ 
"Another opinion," he says, "which does harm more quietly 1 , l modestius 
but more deeply, says indeed that the Son of God is God, m * 2 n r _ a " 
but not begotten of the Father in eternity 2 of excellence ; cens 
and that there was a time when He was not." Here you \ 
see that oft-repeated statement of the Arians respecting the 
Son of God, that " there was a time when He was not," 
condemned by the author in express terms. And of this 
author let what has been said suffice. 

8. Constantine the Great, in an epistle to the Nicome- 
dians, against Eusebius and Theognis, which he wrote after 
the council of Nice, and in which he inveighs vehemently 
and severely against the Arians, speaks thus respecting God 
the Father and the Son r ; "I confess 3 the Father without 3 </>ij/il. 
beginning, without end, the parent of time itself; and the 
Son, that is to say, the will of the Father, which is not 
taken up 4 through any mental conception 5 , nor comprehended 4 
with a view to the perfecting of His works through any 
sought-out essence 6 . For whosoever thinks, and shall think 
this, will have an unwearied endurance of every kind of pun- ^ 
ishment. For Christ, the Son of God, the maker of all <rias. 
things, and the giver of immortality itself, was begotten, 
so far as relates to the faith by which we have believed ; 
He was begotten, or rather He went forth Himself, being 
also always in the Father, to set in order the things which [620] 
were made by Him." Here every one may observe an or 
thodox and excellent explanation by Constantine of the view 
of those Antenicene fathers of whom we have treated above, 
which the Arians forsooth, as it is probable, dragged in to 
sanction their heresy. This explanation, however, given 


q Alia modestius, sed mordacius no- j/o^crei, OVTOS e|et irpbs airav 

cens, dicit quidem Dei Filium Deum ytvos a.Kap.arov viro/j.ovnv. a\\a yap 6 

sed non ex Patre nobilitatis perpetui- rov eov vlbs Xpurrbs, 6 ruiv curdi Tow 

tate progenitum ; fuisseque tempus, 8r)fj.iovpybs, Kal TTJS aOavaarias CIUTTJS x~ 

quando non fuit. p. 426. [p. 386.] pyybs, eyi>vf)6r] daov irpbs r^v T/HJTLV 

r riarepa </>i7jtil avapxov, &vev rt\ovs, ai/Tj/cei , 77 ir(inarTfvKa[j.V eyewfiBii, /J.a\~ 

yovfa TOV cd&vos avrov v ibv Se, rov- Kov Se irpor)\dei avrbs Kal irdvTOTe eV 

TfffTi r))v TOV Tlarpos $OV\T)(TIV, ^ns rep Tlarpl &v, firl T))V ra>v vir* avrov yc- 

otire 8t evdvfjL-f]ff(as TWOS avci^irrai, yfvvf]^vcav 5taK6<T/ji.T)(rii . Apud Ge!a- 

O(JT irpbs TT]v rcav tpycav avrov Tf\eai- siuni de Actis Nicaen. Concil., part. iii. 

ovpyiav Sid nvos f^e^i]T rj/j.^vr]S ovo- ias [p. 217.] 
t>s yap TOVTO Kal vof~i, Kal 

496 Constantine s explanation agrees ivith that of Athenagoras ; 

ON THE by an emperor who has deserved so well of Christianity, 
CO-ETER- ^ich doubtless he did not promulge without consulting the 
THE SON. catholic bishops who were in constant attendance on him,) 
" Petavius 8 , with effrontery enough, as is his usual custom, 
jejunam calls "a jejune and lifeless notion 1 ." So it seems every 
etenectam t i,: n< , j s ] e \ UUG and lifeless with him, which does not square 

notionem. tllj "& J J . . 

with the scholastic theology, which itself is, tor the most 
part, truly jejune and lifeless. Is it so then that the greatest 
Christian emperor of the world is to come under the rod of 
a modern Jesuit, because he did not speak the precise lan 
guage of the schoolmen, at the same time that he is not in 
troducing any novel phraseology, and that he expressed the 
selfsame meaning which all Catholics acknowledge? Who 
can forbear being indignant at this tyranny of the school ? 
I ask Petavius what he can justly blame in these words of 
Constantine? Is he displeased that the excellent emperor 
designates that going forth of the Son from the Father to 
create the universe, a generation? Yet he himself plainly 
intimates that he is speaking not of a generation properly 
so called, but of a figurative and metaphorical one. -For 
after he had said, "He was begotten," he immediately 
corrects himself by adding these words, "or rather, He 
went forth Himself;" and he expressly allows that the 

nunquam Son always 2 existed in and with His Father. Moreover, in 
[621] an e pi st l e to Arius, written apparently about the same time, 
preserved also in Gelasius 4 , he teaches in express terms that 
God the Father begat the Son of Himself, " eternally and 
without beginning," (atS/w? KOI avapxcos.) Now it must be 
observed that this explanation of Constantine exactly cor- 

3 ffryhffei. responds with the explanation 3 of Athenagoras, which we 
adduced before. Athenagoras had said that the Son was 
the First Offspring of the Father, that is, put forth first, 
229 before all creatures, a little before the foundation of the 
world ; but he presently corrects himself by saying, " not as 
having been" then first " brought into being," (ovx s yevo- 
pevov,) since the Word existed always with the Father; but 
as going forth from the Father, in order that He might be 
the idea and active principle 4 of the things which were to 
be created ; and Constantine explains himself exactly in the 

De Trin. i. 5. 10. p. 31. Part iii. 

is confirmed by passages in St. Athanasius. 497 

same way. And I have no doubt that this was the very ex- BOOK m. 
position which Constantino is said to have established at the C A S% IX 
council of Nice in that passage of the epistle of Eusebius, of 
which I treated largely above, although it is there repre 
sented most incorrectly. 

9. But what if we can shew that Athanasius himself sanc 
tioned with his approval this "jejune and lifeless" notion of 
Constantino ? Will Petavius venture to utter a murmur 
against that great vindicator and defender of the catholic 
faith against the Arians ? Certainly not, I imagine. For he 
professes to think", that to Athanasius " above other fathers 
an exact and clear insight into the catholic doctrine of the 
Trinity was vouchsafed by God." Let us then hear Atha 
nasius, (whom I myself also allow to be beyond all praise.) 
In his third oration against the Arians, on that passage of 
the Apostle, wherein Christ is designated " the First-born 
of every creature," which the heretics used to allege in 
order to overthrow the consubstantiality and co-eternity of [622] 
the Son, he makes this reply*; "And though He is called 
the First-born of the creation, still He is not called the First 
born as being made level 1 with the creatures, and the first of i ^ s ^ lff o{,. 
them in respect of time; for how could this be where He is M6>/os< 
the Only-begotten? But it is because of the condescen 
sion 2 of the Word to the creatures." And a little after he 2 ffV y Kar d- 
saysy; "For the same [Person 3 ] cannot be both the Only- f a<m ; 
begotten and the First-born, except indeed it be in different 
relations; so that He be Only-begotten, because of His ge- 
neration of the Father, as has been said ; and First-born, Kal 
because of His condescension to 5 the creation, and theor 
making of many to be His brethren. Certainly, these two 
expressions being opposed to each other, one might justly 
say that the property of being the Only-begotten holds 
rather in the case of the Word, inasmuch as there is no other 

u [Petavius, Praefat. in torn. ii. Theol. re /cat Trp(ar6roKos flvai, el ^ apa irp^ 5 

Dogm. c. 3. 5.] #AAo /cat &AAo iva povoyzv}}* p.ev, 8 l a 

fl 8e trpwroTOKOs rrjs KTurews Ae- rrjv e /c Tlarpbs "yivvncnv, &(rirep etjOTjraf 

7erai, aAA ovx &* e|trrou/iez/os ro7s TT/SCOT^TO/COS Se, 8ta TT)J> els T^V KT KTIJ/ 

KTi(Tfj.acri, /cat irpwros avrSsv Kara xpd- (rvyKard/3a<nv, Kal T^]V TWV TroAAcD,/ 

vov , irpwTOTOKQS Ac^eraf TTUS yap, dSeA^OTrotTjo tj . a/xeAet rwv 5vo rovria v 

OTT ovye fjiovoyevris fffnv avr6s ; aAAa pr]Tu>u avTiKei^iiHiw <xAA7?Ao<s, /cparelj/ 

otft T$)i/ irpos Ta KTitT/jLaTa crvy a- aV TIS e^Trot SiKaius CTT) TOV Xo^ov T^ 

<riv TO v \6yov. Athan., torn. i. p. 432. TOV /j.ovoysvovs p.uX\ov t5ico/xa, 5ta T, 

[Orat ii. 62. voL i. p. 529.] ^ elvai erepov \6yov 7) &\\r]v crofyiav 

y ov Svvarai y ap 6 avibs p.ovoytvi)S a\\arovTov^.6vov a\r)6ivbvvlbv elvairo 



498 Athanasius explanation of "First-born of every creature ;" 

Word nor other Wisdom, but He alone is the true Son of 
the Father. For, as has been before said, the words the 
Only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father/ are 
said of Him," (i. e. in John i. 18, a passage which had been a 
little before adduced,) " not with any reason annexed 1 , but ab- 
MI*.- so i ute iy. Whilst, on the contrary, the term First-born has 
connected with it the reason of the creation, which Paul 
* eV, per, added in saying, For by 2 [or in] Him were all things created/ 
Bull Now if a ii the creatures were created by [or in] Him, He is 
another than the creatures, and is not a creature, but the 
Creator of the creatures. It was not, then, because He is 

3 &* rb <? from the Father 3 that He is called the First-born, but because 
uarpbs. the crea tion was m ade by [or in] Him. And as before t the 

creation He was Himself the Son, through whom the creation 
was made ; so also before He was called the First-born of all 
the creation, not the less was the Word Himself with God, 
[623] and the Word was God." Here Athanasius plainly teaches, 
that the Son was the Word with God, and God the Word 
from everlasting, and before He became the First-born of 
every creature ; and that He is called the First-born of every 
creature because of His condescension to the creatures, that 

4 ex. is to say, because He descended from 4 the Father in order to 

create them, and exalted the reasonable creatures themselves, 
after they were created, to the adoption of sons of God. Now, 
who that is not dull of understanding but must perceive, that 
the theology of Athanasius in this place exactly agrees with 
[624] the teaching of the ancient writers, whom we have already 
mentioned ? But if these words seem to any one not explicit 
enough, Athanasius shortly afterwards explains himself still 
more clearly, thus 2 ; " For it is plain to all, that, neither be 
cause of [what He is in] Himself, as though He were a crea 
ture, nor yet because of His having any kinship in respect of 

Tlarp6s Kal yap &a"irep e/r7rpo<T0ej/ efpri- apa TrpcaT6TOKOS fKX^Or], a\\a fiia rb sv 

Tat, ov juera TWOS avp.TreTrhey/j.evris al- avrcp yeyevTJffOai Tr\v KTiffLV. Kal Sxrwep 

Tia?, aAAa a7roAeA.t/jU,eVa>s efyrjrcu CTT Trpb TTJS KTicrecos 3\v avrbs 6 vlbs, Si* ov 

avrov rb, O /j-ovoyevris vlbs, 6 &v ets yeyovev T) KT KTIS, ovrcas Kal irpb TOV 

Tbv K.6\Trov TOU Tlarpos. rb 8e Trpwrd- K\T)Qrivai Trpcor^ro/cos ird.crt]s TTJS KT(- 

TOKOS, (rv/j.TreTr\ey/j.fvr)v e^et iraXiv TT\V (Tews, 1\v ouSei/ T^TTO^ aurbs 6 \6yos 

TTJS KTicrews alria.v fyv strriyaytv 6 Hav- irpbs rbv ebv, Kal ebs i]v 6 \6yos. 

\os \eywv, "On fv avry e Ti<r07j TO. p. 433. [p. 530.] 

irdvra. el 8e irdvra TO. Kricr/jLara ev z Hacri ydp ecrri SrjXov, on ovre 8f 

y $KrlffOi), &\x6s eo-Tt ru>v KTio~/j.d- eavrbv, &s /criV/xo &v, ovre Sta rb o~vy- 

Kal /CTiVjwa f*ev OVK ecrri, KT KJTT]S yeveidv iiva Kar 1 ovaiav irpbs -naffav 

KTio-fj-druj/. ov 5ia rb eK Tlarpbs TTJV KT KTIV ex ea/ > Trpcor^TOKOj avrbs [al. 

a key to Athenagoras meaning ; compared together. 499 

essence with the whole creation, was He called the First-born l BOOK m. 
but because both at the beginning the Word, in making the ^Jf Vaf 
creatures, condescended to the things made, in order that it i [ or , 
might be possible for them to be brought into being; for 
they could not have borne His nature, being the unmixed it. 1 ] 
brightness of the Father 2 , unless having condescended with 
the Father s loving-kindness He had taken hold of them, 
and having taken hold of them had brought them into ex 
istence ; and again, secondly, in that by the condescension 
of the Word the creature itself also is through Him adopted 
into sonship ; in order that also of it, as has been before 
stated, He might in all things become the First-born, both in 
creating it, and in being brought into the world for 3 all." 

10. In these passages of Athanasius, I affirm that there 
is contained an exact and clear explanation of the theories 
propounded by Athenagoras, and other fathers whom I have [625] 
before adduced, respecting a nativity of the Word shortly 
before the creation of the world. But since of all the Ante- 
nicene writers Athenagoras has treated this subject with the 
greatest clearness and accuracy, I have thought it well to 
compare his statements especially with those of Athanasius. 
In the first place, then, Athenagoras had called the Word, 
the First offspring of the Father, cautiously adding, that this 
must not be so regarded, as if the Word were something 
brought into being, (yevofjuevov rl } ) inasmuch as He existed 
from everlasting with God the Father. Athanasius in like 
manner reminds us expressly, that, when in the Scriptures 
the Word is called the First-born of every creature, this 
phrase must by no means be so explained, as if He w r ere 
the first among the creatures, or had an essence akin to 
created beings; seeing that He was the Word with God, 
and God the Word, before He became the First-born of 
every creature, and so from everlasting. Secondly, Athe 
nagoras called the Word the First Offspring of the Father, 

A &riMatlcaT*&p- Sevrepov 5e vd\tv, 6 

av 6 \6yos ra Kria^ara rov \6yov, vio-noielrai teal avrrj TJ Kriffis 

rocs -yew/roty, tva yeve- 5t avrov iva Kal avrrjs, /ca0a 

ffBai ravra Swrjdfj- OVK Uv yap tfvtyKtv rat, TrpcoT^ro/cos Kara irdvTa 

abrov rrjv fyfaiv, aKparov Kal irarpiKrjv ev re r$ Krifciv, Kal eV r$ ei 

olaav \ap.Trp6rv)ra, et yu?) (piXavOpuiria virep iravruv els Tr]v oiKovfJLtvijv. p. 

varpiKfj avyKarafias avre\d0ero, Kal 435. [ 64. p. 532.] 
avra els ovaiav tfveKf Kal 

500 Athanasius condescension is the same as Athenagoras 3 

ON THE in consequence of that going forth (irpoftewis,) whereby He 

CO-ETEK- went forth from t h e Bather to be the idea and energy of the 

THE SON. future creation. So Athanasius understood that the Word 

Himself is called the First-born, because of his condescension 

(o-vy/carajSao-is) to the creation; where the going forth (nrpoi- 

\eva-Ls) of Athenagoras is no doubt equivalent to Athanasius 

condescension (a-vy/cara/Sacri,?), except that the latter term 

more clearly expresses the cause of that which is signified by 

both. However in the passage which I have a adduced above, 

Athanasius, as well as Athenagoras, has used in this matter 

the very expression 7rpoe\0a)v, (having gone forth). Lastly, 

those Antenicene fathers, whose view I have explained in 

the four preceding chapters of this book, agree in explaining 

that passage of the Apostle, in which Christ is called the 

J pn>gres- First-born of every creature, of the going forth 1 , as it were, 

sione. of t | ie ^ord from the Father, for the creation of all things ; 

and Athanasius does the same. And this interpretation 

the author of the old Latin version seems also to have fol 

lowed, for he paraphrases the words of Wisdom, respecting 

herself, in Ecclesiasticus xxiv. 3, " I came forth out of the 

mouth of the Most High, and like a cloud I covered the 

earth," thus b : " I came forth out of the mouth of the Most 

High, the First-born before every creature; I made an un 

failing light to arise in the heavens ;" I call this translation 

a paraphrase, because in the Greek text, as also in the Syriac 

and the Arabic versions, these clauses, "the First-born be 

fore every creature, I made an unfailing light to arise in the 

heavens," are wanting. Now from this paraphrase of the 

author, (whose version both we ourselves recognise as very 

ancient, and the doctors of the Roman Church hold to be 

authentic,) it is clear that, in the opinion of the translator, 

by Wisdom is there meant the Word or Son of God, and 

that the Word is called the First-born before every creature, 

because in the beginning He came forth, as it were, from the 

mouth of God the Father, to create the universe, together with 

the utterance of that almighty word, " FIAT," which we read 

2 primige- that God used also in the creation of the primal 2 light. Nor 

is there any ground for fear, that in this passage of Ecclesi- 

* See this Book, c. 7. 5. [p. 468.] fed in coelis ut oriretur lumen indefi- 
b Ego ex ore Altissimi prodivi, pri- dens. [Ecclus. xxiv. 3. ed. Lat. Vulg.] 
mogenita ante omrtem creaturam ; ego 

1 going forth of the Word to create need ofthisinterposition. 501 

asticus if by Wisdom we understand the Son of God, as all BOOK HI. 
the ancients understood it, the co-eternity of the Son of g^ n. 
God will be endangered ; seeing that Wisdom is frequently 
in the same chapter said to be created and made. For it 
is clear, as Grotius rightly observes, that the word created 
(/cTL^eadai) there signifies, " to be brought forth to light, that 
is, by works." But this by the way. Let us proceed with 

11. In the passages adduced he plainly declares that that 
going forth of the Word from * the Father to create all ! ex. 
things, on account of which He is called in Scripture, the 
First-born of every creature, was a kind 2 of condescension 2 quandam. 
of His. And he also alleges this cause of that condescen 
sion, that otherwise, and unless the Word had so humbled [627] 
Himself, the creatures could by no means have borne and 
sustained His nature, and the unmixed 3 splendour of theindilu- 
Father, (that is, that glory, equal to the Father s, which tum - 
He had from everlasting with the Father.) Exactly the 
same was said, as we have just now seen, by the author 
of the Sermons attributed to Zeno of Verona, on. that nati 
vity of the Son, which was immediately followed by the cre 
ation of the world, when he thus writes ; " But how He, 
who went forth, was begotten, it were madness to con 
jecture. For the Son attempers Himself on account of the 
nature of the creatures, lest the mean estate of this world 
should be unable to sustain the Lord of eternal Majesty." 
And no other meaning (as it seems to me) was intended by 
the learned Eusebius Pamphili, when in his Panegyric on 
Constantine, chap, ii., he thus wrote d ; "We ought exceed- 231 
ingly to be overawed at the hidden and invisible Word, the 
same who both formed and set in order 4 the universe, being 4 i 8 0ff0t ^ 
the Only-begotten of God; whom the Maker of all things, Te ? ai K0 ~ 
who is beyond and far above every essence, Himself begat of 
Himself, and appointed as Prince and Governor of this uni 
verse. For inasmuch as it was not possible that the fleeting 
substance of bodies, and the nature of the rational creatures 

c [See above, p. 491, note i.] a"r)s fireicetva Kal avwrdrci) ovaias, avrbs 

d rlv acpavri Kal aoparov \6yov, rhv e eauroD yewfi<ras, r)ye/u.6i>a /ecu Kvfitp- 

87) rov iravrbs flSoTroi6i/ re Kal /cocr/idj- vr\rf]v rovSe rov iravrbs Karearrjaaro. 

ropa, virepeKir\r)K7fov, ovra rov 0eoG eVet yap jU7/ oUvre fy, Trjv pevar^v Ttav 

v 6 rcav o\(av TTOITJTTJS, 6 ird- (rw/xarajf ovffiav, TI\V re ruv apn ysvo- 

502 Eusebius; the Word a mean between God and created beings; 

ON THE but just brought into being, should approach to the all-ruling 
^YOF" God, through the exceeding degree wherein they fell short 
THE SON. o f m s supreme power, (for He indeed was unbegotten, far 
above and beyond all things, ineffable, incomprehensible, 
unapproachable, dwelling in the light which no man hath 
access unto/ as the Holy Scriptures say ; whereas the nature 
which was put forth out of what was not, is most widely 
distant and far removed from the nature which is unbe 
gotten,) with good reason the All-good and God of the*, uni 
verse, interposes as a mean the divine and Almighty power 
of His Only-begotten Word, which has indeed the most 
perfect and intimate intercourse 1 possible with the Father, 

en jy s > within Him, His ineffable secrets 2 ; and which 

condescended 3 in great meekness, and was, in a certain man- 
lier *j conformed to those that fall short of the supreme. For 
in any other way it would not have been either pure or holy, 
to connect Him who is beyond and far above all, with cor- 
ruptible matter and body." Here, the word avy/carievai,, 

[628] wm " c h Eusebius uses, has precisely the same meaning as 
that used by Athanasius, avyKarafiaiveiv, that is to say, 
to condescend ; and both authors assign the very same cause 
and reason for that condescension of the Word. But Euse 
bius manifestly says that the power of the Word is a mean 
between God and the creatures, not viewed in Itself, but on 
account of that condescension of which He is speaking. 

[629] Nay, he expressly declares in this place, that the power of 
the Word, even whilst lowering Itself thus, has a most per 
fect and intimate intercourse with God the Father, and re 
maining within Him enjoys His ineffable secrets ; exactly 
in the same sense as Athanasius asserts, that the Word 
Himself does not so condescend, but that He ever remains 
the unmixed splendour of the Father. As to the remark, 

T})V rov /j.ovoyevovs avrov \6yov Qe iav 

d^eiv, Si u7rep/3oA7}j> rf/s airb KUU iravaXKri SvvaiJ.iv aKpifitffTara /J.GI/ 

TOV ^KptirTovos e AAehJ/ews (6 yap d>s tin /j.d\iffTa Kal eyyvrara T< Uarpl 

i\v ayevvrjTos, avoardrca re Kal eVe /ceii/a irpoa o^.iXova av, efoti) re avrov TWV airop- 

TCOJ/ 6\<av, appr)7os, avtfyiKros, airpo- p-fjrwv cnroXavovcrav, Trpaorard ye crvy- 

(Tire\a<TTos, ip&s olniav airp6(TLTOv, p (pa- Ka-riovaav, /cat a.^<aayeir<as ffv<Tx.ri[J.aTi- 

(Tiv 01 tepejot \6yoi rf 5e e| OVK UVTCCV ^op.evr]v rols TTJS a tpas a7roAt j u.7rat i o/u.e- 

irpofie$\f)ij.4vri, Troppcorarco re SieffTcaaa, vois. a\\cas yap our 5 evayes, ovff oaiov, 

Kal ^uawpa*/ TTJS ayevv-f]Tov (pvcrews air- T^V T&V oXtav eVeKeti/o Kal avara. v\y 

fcrxoLvia-^vr) ) ei/corcos 6 TravdyaOos Kal 00apr/? KOI awftaTi (TUAtTrAe/ceii/. p. 

ebs TW 6\uv jueVyji/ nva Trape^jSaAAei 635, 636, ed. Vales, [p. 746.] 

must be understood of His condescension not of His nature. 503 

therefore, of Valesius on this passage (the same who rightly BOOK m. 
vindicates Eusebius from the charge of Arianism), to the {\ 

effect that these words of Eusebius are very well refuted by 
Athanasius, in his third Oration against the Arians d , herein 
that most excellent man (I would say it with all deference 
to him) is quite mistaken. The error, which Athanasius 
there refutes, was that of the Arians, or rather of the semi- 
Arians, who used to teach, that the very nature of the Son 
in itself is a mean between God and the creatures ; that is 
to say, is far removed 1 from the supreme nature of God, and l distare. 
yet is altogether unlike the rest of created beings. That 
Eusebius altogether shrunk from this error, this passage, 
upon which Valesius made that annotation, affords proof 
enough. But that matter is put beyond all risk of contro 
versy by the words of Eusebius in the sixth chapter of this 
very Panegyric on Constantine e ; where, after speculating 
somewhat subtlely on the number three, he says that thereby 
is signified the most holy Trinity, the Father, the Son, and 
the Holy Ghost, whose nature is equal, and alike uncreate and 
without all beginning. His words are these ; " The number 
three (rpias) first exhibited justice, introducing equality; as 
having received beginning, middle, and end equal ; and these 
are an image 2 of the mystical, and all-holy, and sovereign 2 
Trinity; which, depending on the nature that is without 
beginning 3 and ingenerate, has received the seeds and the 3 
proportions and the causes of the being of all created 
things." What, I ask, was ever said by any catholic more [630] 
effectual, or more express than this, against Arius and the 
other anti-Trinitarians f ? Again in chap. ii. of the same 
Panegyric, at the beginning, he expressly attributes to the 
Son of God specifically, a divine empire absolutely co-eternal 
with God the Fathers; "The Only-begotten Word of God," 
he says, " reigning with His own Father from ages that are 232 
without beginning, unto ages that are without limit and 

d p. 396, and following. [Orat. ii. ra (nrfp/j-ara Kal TOVS \6yovs Kal ras 

26. vol. i. p. 494.] curias ewrefAT^e. p. 318. edit. Vales. 

e irptoTT] Se rpias SiKaiocrui/vft/ ai/eSet- [p. 730.] 

|ev, looT-rjros KaO-rjyrja-a^ei r) &s Ui> ap- f [See Reply to G. Clerke, 15 B.] 

X^]v Kal juetroTTjTO Kal r\evTr)v fffrfv K 6 fj.ev ye TOV @eo5 /jLoi/oyevTis Aoyos, 

cbroAajSoCcra elicwv Se Tavra pvar inr)S TC*> avrov TlaTpl av/mfia(ri\evcav e avap- 

Kal Travayias Kal /3a<nAiKTJs rpidSos $) xwv aldovuv els aTTfipovs ical ar 

TTJS avdpxov Kal aywf)Tov fyvffftas riprr)- rovs alui/as. p. 607. [p. 719.] 
jueVrj, rfys TU>V yevrjrwv arrdi Tui ovaias 

504 Alexander used the same words in the same sense. 


1 principii 

2 tanquam 





4 e OVK 



6 i OVK 

without end." But that the Sou of God, who existed with 
His Father from everlasting, as being of the same nature 
with Himself, uncreate and without beginning 1 , did, when 
His Father willed, go forth (as it were) from Him to create 
and govern the universe, and condescended, and attempered 
(as it were) His own power ; this view, I say, not only has 
Athanasius no where refuted, but he has himself in the very 
explicit words which we have quoted, taught it and marked 
with his approbation. Now, if Petavius, who would have it 
thought that there is nothing in the writings of the fathers 
which he has failed to understand, had understood this, 
surely never would the very learned Eusebius, who has de 
served so well of the Catholic Church, have been attacked by 
him (as he is in all his writings) for an utter Arian 2 , because 
he called the Son of God " a mediator 3 between God and the 
creatures," and said other like things ; much less with Jerome, 
[would he have attacked] him as a standard-bearer of the 
Arian faction g ; and even Jerome the excellent Valesius h has 
ventured to blame severely on this account. What is to 
be said of the fact, that even Alexander, bishop of Alex 
andria, who first raised the standard against the impious 
heresy of Arius, said exactly the same as Eusebius : and that 
too in the very epistle which he wrote to Alexander 1 of Con 
stantinople, wherein he most sharply impugns the blasphemies 
of Arius ; " Not knowing," he says, " in their want of good 
learning, that there must be a wide interval between the un- 
begotten Father and the things, both rational and irrational, 
which were created by Him out of what was not 4 ; interven 
ing between which [is] an Only-begotten nature J, that of the 
Word of God, which was begotten of the Father Himself who 
Is 5 , by which the Father made all things out of what was 
not 6 ." Here the meaning of Alexander was, without doubt, the 
same as that of Athanasius his successor in the see of Alex- 

g ["Arianaa quondam signifer fac- 
tionis." S. Jerome, adv. Ruffin. i. 8 ; 
" Eusebii, Arianorum principis." Ib.. 
ii. 15.] 

h De Vita et Scriptis Eusebii, near 
the end. [Prefixed to his edition of the 
Eccl. Hist.] 

1 ayvoovi>Tes ol avd(TK 
&i/ eiT? ^era|i/ Uarpbs 
T&V KTiaQsvruv for avTov e OVK OVTUV, 
XoyiKuv re /cat a.\6yw 

, 5i ?is TO. oAa e OVK 
eVotTjcrej/ 6 Tiar^jp, TOV ov \6- 
yov, $i e O.VTOV TOV ovros Tlarpbs 7e- 
7eW?jTcu. Apud Theodorit. Eccl. 
Hist. i. 4. p. 16, 17. ed. Vales, [p. 17, 

J He uses Nature for Person, for 
he means Nature in Person, c^vaiv t> 
vTToardaei, as he had just before ex 
pressed himself. Valesius in loe. 

This condescension of the Word to create, a mystery. 505 

andria ; for presently after in the same place he goes on to B K m. 
write thus k ; "No one knoweth who the Father is but the 11,12. 
Son ; and no one knoweth who the Son is, but the Father ; 
[of] Him we have learnt that He is incapable of change or 
alteration, even as the Father, a Son wanting nothing and 
perfect, like unto the Father, inferior to Him only in [this 
that the Father is 1 ] unbegotten : for He is the most exact \ 
and unvarying image of the Father." These words, at any 
rate, are so clear and distinct as to require no comment. 
He who wrote them could not have meant to say, that the 
Son of God intervenes 2 between God and the creatures, in 2 
the same sense as Arius. 

12. Perhaps you will ask me, what was the nature of that 
condescension of the Word for the creation of the universe 
of which the holy fathers speak ? But what if I should 
simply answer, that I do not know? I am not on that 
account at liberty to despise and set at nought as an un 
meaning subtilty, this notion of the venerable fathers ; for 
their modesty and reverence for the holy mystery was too 
great to allow us to suppose that they fabricated it out of 
their own brain. Do you tell me, what was the nature of 
that emptying of Himself 3 and condescension of the Word 3 
and Son of God, whereby for us men and for our salvation 
He came forth from the Father, descended from heaven, and 
was incarnate ; and I will endeavour to explain to you that 
other condescension; that is, supposing us both to act as mad 
men, in attempting to scrutinize the mysteries of God. And 
who are we that are to do this ? they that cannot know, as 
Gregory of Nazianzen 1 long ago well said, even those things 
which lie before our feet. For my own part, indeed, I would 
not venture to scrutinize this mystery; (although I think 
that I see what might not unwisely be said concerning it ;) 
I return, therefore, to Athanasius, who manifestly attributes 
a threefold nativity to the Son. The first is that, whereby, 
as the Word, He existed from everlasting of the Father and 
with the Father, as the co-eternal offspring of the eternal 

k ovfiels o?5e ris iffTiv 6 Uarrjp, et /u.^ vov e/cetVou. eiitwi ydp 

6 vl6s Kal ovSels ol5e T LS effnv 6 vlbs, fiw u.ei ri Kal aTrapaAAa/cros TOV TlaTpos. 

fl /j.}} 6 TiaT-fjp. aTp6TTTOV TOVTOV Kal [Ibid., p. 18.] 

dfaAAcncDToi/, ws rbv -rrarepa, curpoaSefj, Orat. xxxvii. [Oral. xxxi. 8. p. 

Kal reAeiOj/ vibv, e/j.(j)tpri T< TLa-rpl jue- 561.] 

506 Athanasius on the Nativities of the Son. 

ON THE mind of the Father. This alone is the true and properly so- 

C NIT E YOF" called nativity of the Word, in so far forth as He is the Word 

THE SON. O f G d an d God. It is by reason of this nativity, Athanasius 

thought, that He is called in the Scriptures the Only-begotten; 

and it is in this respect alone that he thought also that the 

U K narpbs. Son is of the Father 1 , that is to say, has derived the begin- 

[633] ning an d origin of His subsistence 2 from the Father. The 

2 su !> sis - second nativity consists in that condescension, whereby the 

Word went out from God the Father to create the universe. 
Athanasius held that it is in reference to this that He is called 
in the Scriptures the First-born of every creature. From 
this nativity no accession was made to the Divine Person of 
the Word; seeing that, as he says, it was rather a humiliation 
and condescension on His part. Lastly, His third nativity 
then took place when the same divine Person came forth from 
the bosom and glory of the Father, and entered into the womb 
of the blessed Virgin; and thus "the Word was made flesh," or 
was born man, in order that through Him we men might re 
ceive the adoption of sons. Call to mind what we said ii. 8, 
5, [p. 214] on Hippolytus. Take care, however, not to think 
lightly of this interpretation of the great Athanasius; inasmuch 
as it furnishes you with the best key to the mind and view of 
certain of the ancients, whose expressions the Arians afore- 

3 imperite time most ignorantly 3 dragged in to support their heresy, 
admodum. an( j cer t am mo dern theologians not less ignorantly (I ven 
ture to say so, although they fancy themselves wiser than 
every one else) have charged with Ariamsm. 

13. To finish this chapter at last. From all this it is 
evident, that Petavius 1 groundlessly censured that most ex 
cellent and (looking to the age m in which he lived) most 
learned writer, Rupertus Abbas Tuitiensis, (the abbot of Tu,) 
for having written as follows in the first of his Commentaries 
on Genesis, chap. x. n ; "What then? what are we to under 
stand as implied in the words, God said, but the generation 
of the eternal Word, the Word consubstaiitial with God, 
[634] from the effect of which both we and the angels are endued 

^ De Trin. i. 5. 9. n Q u j(j er g ? q u i<j i n eo , quod die- 
He sent out his Comments on turn est, dixit Deus, nisi generationem 
the Scripture in the year 1117. Cave. Verbi Eeterui, Verbi Deo consubstan- 
BOWYER. [His whole works were tialis, de cujus effectu et nos et angeli 
published at Paris, 1638. B.] rationales sumus, significatum iutelli- 

Rupertus Abbas on this ground unjustly blamed by Petavius. 507 

with reason ? For the Word, which was truly born without BOOK m. 
speech [vocal utterance 1 ], and virtually contained all things, K"^ is* 
the Father then actually begat when He created the heaven , 
and the earth, when He made the light and all other things." natum. 
In these words, whilst He plainly acknowledges both the con- 
substantiality and co-eternity of the Word or Son of God, and 
that He was truly, and without speech [vocal utterance] , born 
from everlasting, (which he does in a hundred other places,) 
he nevertheless attributes to Him a kind of 2 generation, 2 quandam. 
immediately preceding the creation of the world, in respect 
of which He was said to have been actually 3 born of the 3 actuali- 
Father ; inasmuch as He then proceeded from the Father, to ter 
become the energy 4 of the creation, and to produce actually 5 4 <H>7<- 
all those things which from everlasting He had virtually within 
Himself. Now, why could not Petavius allow Rupertus with 
impunity to use the same language as the Catholic fathers, 
both the Antenicene and those who wrote after the council 
of Nice, and who were most strenuous opponents of the Arian 
heresy ? The truth is, that writer, from being very well versed 
in the records of the primitive Church, as he in many points 
freely asserted the ancient and catholic faith against the 
novelties of the Roman Church [then] in process of degene 
racy 6 , so especially he ventured to impugn openly that great 6 degene- 
idol of the papists, the dogma of trans instantiation, which ra 
in his age, to the amazement of the learned and the pious, had 
begun to prevail every where, and to be obtruded as an ail- 
but catholic doctrine. Hence that hatred of the Romanists 
against Rupertus ; nay, for this reason, the remains of that 
excellent writer would have been doomed to eternal obscurity, 
had not some learned reformed divines brought them out to 
light against the wish of the papists. This even Bellarmine 
himself candidly allows in the following words ; " This," he 
says, (namely, the fact that the dogma of the change of the 
eucharistic bread into the Body of Christ is refuted throughout 
his writings,) is evidently the cause why the works of Ruper- [635] 
tus Tuitiensis, although in other respects neither bad nor un- 

gere debemus? Vere enim sine voce quando lucem et caetera fecit. [Op., 

natum, et omnia potentialiter continens vol. i. p. 4. Ven. 1748.] 

Verbum tune Pater actualiter genera- De Script. Eccl. on Rupertus Tui- 

vit, quando coelura et terram creavit, tiensis. [Op., vol. vii. p. 140.] 

508 Tertullian and Lactantius apparently deny the Co-eternity. 

ON THE learned, have lain for about the space of four hundred years, 
CO-ETER- w i t h ou t light or honour, in the shades of oblivion ; for in 
THE SON. our own days have they first begun to see the light." But 
enough on these matters. 



1. OF those Antenicene writers who have been charged 
by certain learned men with denying the co-eternal ex 
istence of the Son of God with God the Father, we have 
hitherto omitted two ; I mean Tertullian and Lactantius : 
and since their case appears to be peculiar, we have thought 
it best to treat of them separately and in a distinct propo 
sition. Let our proposition be this : 


Tertullian, indeed, has in one passage ventured to write 
expressly, that there was a time when the Son of God was not. 
But, in the first place, it is certain, that that writer, though in 
other respects a man of great ability and equal learning, fell 
off from the Catholic Church to heresy; and it is very uncertain 
which books he wrote when a catholic, which when inclining 
to heresy, and which, lastly, when a decided heretic. Se 
condly, Tertullian appears to have used that expression in 
a controversial way, and in disputation with his adversary, 
playing on the Word " Son :" so that, although he seems to 
have absolutely denied the eternity of the Son, still he really 
meant 110 more than what those fathers meant whom we have 
cited in chap. 5 8 of this book ; namely, that the Divine 
[636] Person who is called the Son of God, although He always 
existed with the Father, was then first declared to be the 

Tertullian s words; Bellarmine s explanation ; rejected. 509 

Son, when He went forth from the Father to make the uni- BOOK m. 
verse. Certainly the same Tertullian has in many other ^j^* 
passages treated of the co-eternity of the Son in a clearly TERTUL _ 
catholic sense, if we regard the main drift 1 of his doctrine. As LIAN. 
for Lactantius, who also in one passage attributes, not ob- ^ ^ f p f - 
scurely, a beginning of existence to the Son of God ; his 
estimation and authority is but of little weight in the Church 
of God, inasmuch as he was almost entirely uninstructed in 
Holy Scripture and Christian doctrine. And, secondly, it must 
necessarily be held, either that those passages in the writings 
of Lactantius, which seem to make against the eternity of 
the Son, have been corrupted by some Manichsean heretic ; 
or, at any rate, that Lactantius himself was infected with the 
heresy of Manes. Lastly, he has himself in other passages 
expressed a more sound opinion concerning the eternity of 
the Word. 

2. To begin with Tertullian; the passage in which he 
states that absurd opinion occurs in his treatise against Her- 
mogenes, chap. iii., where he thus writes; " Because God 
is a Father and God is a Judge, it does not on that account 
follow, that, because He was always God, He was always a 
Father and a Judge. For He could neither have been a 
Father before the Son, nor a Judge before transgression. 
But there was a time when there was no transgression and 
no Son, the one to make the Lord a Judge, and the other a 
Father/ On this place Bellarmine replies on behalf of Ter 
tullian to the following effect?, (and he has been recently 
followed by a certain reverend writer of our own**;) "The 
Son," his words are, " of whom Tertullian says in his trea 
tise against Hermogenes, that He did not always exist, is not 
the "Word of God, but a Son by adoption, that is, any other 
holy man whatsoever, or angel. For it is not Christ that is 
here treated of, but the creature that partakes of reason, [637] 
which has come into being 2 from without, and has given unto 2 acce ssit. 
God the name of Father in time." But nothing is more 

Quia et Pater Deus est, et judex minum faceret. [p. 234.] 

Deus est; non tamen ideo Pater et P Controv., torn. i. de Christo i. 10. 

judex semper, quia Deus semper. [p. 341.] 

Nam nee Pater potuit esse ante Filium, i [Dr. Samuel Gardiner; Catholicse 

nee judex ante delictum. Fuit autem circa SS. Trin. Fidei Delineatio ; pp. 

tempus, cum et delictum et Filius non 203, 204, Lond. 1677.] 
fuit, quod judicem, et qui Patrem Do- 



i in sensu 


510 If Tertullian really meant this, he ivas heterodox; 

certain than that this answer is altogether foreign to the mind 
of Tertullian. For besides that in the passage adduced he is 
speaking of the Son of God absolutely, and without any limi 
tation, and denies simply that God was always a Father, he 
also in another passage in this very book clearly explains 
his own meaning. For, in chap, xviii., he writes thus of the 
Son of God, under the name of Wisdomn; "For if," he 
says, "within the Lord, that which was of Him, and in 
Him, was not without beginning, that is to say, His Wisdom, 
born and framed, from the time that It began to be agitated 
in the mind of God 1 , to set in order the works of the uni 
verse ; much more is it impossible that any thing should have 
been without beginning, which was external to the Lord." 
From this, I say, it is manifest, that Tertullian, when he wrote 
those words, was in no wise thinking of adopted sons of God, 
the holy angels, that is, or men ; but that he was speaking of 
that Son of God, who is also called Wisdom, through whom 
God created this universe. 

3. Others, therefore, frankly and roundly answer, that Ter 
tullian in this place, as in many others, through over confi 
dence in his own great ability, manifestly deviated from the 
path of catholic truth : and that we need not to give much 
heed to what he taught, since his heresy, as Hilary 1 " expresses 
it, "has taken away the authority from such writings as were 
[otherwise] to be approved." That the Antenicene fathers, 
as well those who wrote before Tertullian as those who 
wrote after him, agreed in recognising the co-eternity of the 
Son, we have already abundantly proved. So that, if Ter 
tullian did in truth deny the eternity of the Son, he was 
heterodox. To this you may add, that, after Tertullian had 
in his writings published that absurd statement, "There 
was a time when the Son of God was not," the catholic 
fathers who lived after him, very soon in a united body, as it 
were, openly impugned that blasphemy, and stated it in their 
writings in express terms with the view of refuting it. We 

i Si enim intra Dominum quod ex fuisse, quod extra Dominum fuerit. 
ipso et in ipso fuit, sine initio non fuit, [p. 239.] 

. detraxit scriptis probabilibus 

Sophia scilicet ipsius, exinde nata et 
condita, ex quo in sensu Dei ad opera 
mundi disponenda coepit agitari ; multo 
magis non capit sine initio quicquam 

auctoritatem. Comment, on Matth. v. 
[p. 630.] 

but the context and argument suggest another explanation. 511 

have in the previous chapters shewn that this was done by BOOK m. 
Origen, the two Dionysii, of Rome, and of Alexandria, Gre- c ^24 
gory Thaumaturgus and Pamphilus the Martyr. Moreover TERTUL- 
also, the author of the Treatise on the Trinity amongst the LIAN - 
works of Tertullian, though in other respects he almost 
always imitates Tertullian and follows his opinions, (from 
which circumstance that work has been attributed to Ter 
tullian himself,) nevertheless on this point openly departs 
from him. For whereas Tertullian had expressly taught 
that the Father was not always a Father, he, on the other 
hand, plainly affirms in his last chapter, that we must set 
it down, that the Son always was in the Father 8 , "lest 
the Father be not always a Father/ And this reply is 
quite sufficient to shut the mouths of the Arians who boast 
of Tertullian as their patron. At any rate Jerome, against 
Helvidius, chap. ix. when pressed by the authority of Ter 
tullian, replies, thus in one word *, " Of Tertullian I say no 
more, than that he was not a man of the Church." 

4. Meanwhile it seems to me that on this point another 
answer should be made ; for I think that Tertullian put 
forth those words which we have quoted out of his book 
against Hermogenes, not as if he really and from his heart 
believed 1 them, but by way of disputation and in argument, ] haudbona 
with the view of any how mastering his opponent. It is known f^inS ex 
to all who have even a slight acquaintance with the writings , 

of Tertullian, that it is usual with him to seize on argu 
ments from every quarter in support of his own hypothesis, 
and those arguments too not seldom such as he himself 
even was aware were of little or no force. I am persuaded 
that in this place he acted in his usual way. Hermogenes [639] 
contended that matter existed from eternity and without 
beginning, on the ground that otherwise God would not 
have been Lord from eternity, seeing that He would not 
have had any thing to obey Him. To this Tertullian replies 
that God is also called Father in the Scriptures, although 
He was not always a Father, but begat unto Himself a Son 
from a definite beginning 2 . And that the Son was begot- 2 abaliquo 
ten from a definite beginning, he seems to have concluded llut10 

s [See above, ch. 8. 6. p. 477.] plius dico, quam ecclesiae hominem 

1 De Tertulliano quidem nihil am- non fuisse. [ 17. vol. ii. p. 225.] 

512 Bp. Bull s explanation of Tertullian s words. 

ON THE from this, that He went forth from the Father to create the 
wriTo*" universe, not from eternity, but at length, after infinite 
THE SON, ages, when the Father willed ; which going forth of His 
some doctors of that age called by the name of genera 
tion. Now, though Tertullian was not ignorant that that 
going forth was not the generation or production properly so 
called, of the Son, (seeing that He existed from everlasting 
with the Father,) he yet, to serve his hypothesis, thought 
proper to suppress this. By a sophism not unlike thi$ a 
person might say of the Creator of the universe, there was a 
time when the Creator was not, understanding that is, so far 
forth as He is called Creator. For God, the Creator of all 
things, was then at length called, and as it were made, the 
Creator, when He formed all things out of nothing; and 
there was a time when no made or created being existed, 
from which God should be denominated Creator. In the 
meantime, he who argues thus must not by any means be 
regarded as denying that God, to whom the name of Creator 
accrued at a definite time, is absolutely eternal. In some 
such way as this, I repeat, Tertullian here argues about the 
Word, who is also called the Son of God; "There was," says 
he, " a time when the Son was not ;" understanding, that is, 
so far forth as He is called the Son. For Tertullian thought 
that the Word was herein especially declared to be the Son 
of God, in that, when God the Father willed, He went forth 
from Him, and issued forth, as it were, from the womb of the 
[640] mind of the Father, and was, as it were, born, in order to 
create the universe. But there was a time when the Word 
had not as yet thus gone forth from God. At the same time 
it is clear from other passages that Tertullian well knew that 

1 nunquam the Word, who is called the Son of God, always 1 was in being 
nOI 236 an ^ ex i s ted with God. But Tertullian s artifice in con 
tending with this argument, appears in a clearer light from 
that other passage, in the 18th chapter of the same book, 
which we quoted a little before. He there says that that 
Wisdom of God which is within God Himself, and which 

2 ex Deo. is of God 2 Himself, and which therefore previously ex- 
3 aliquan- isted in God Himself, had a beginning at a definite time 3 . 

Strange ! what CEdipus can solve this enigma for us ? Surely, 
4 ex Deo. what is of God 4 Himself, and in God Himself, is God. But speaking of the actual Personal existence oftheWord. 513 

there is nothing belonging to God 1 which is not eternal, as BOOK in. 
Tertullian himself elsewhere acknowledges. How then, I CH | ? 4 t X 
ask you, could that which even hefore was in God Himself, TERTUL- 
afterwards have had a beginning ? If any one say that Ter- ^ IAN ; 
tullian conceived, that Wisdom, who is also called the Son of 
God, existed virtually 1 only in God, previously to that begin- 2 > poten- 
ning of which he speaks, he is plainly trifling. For in this 
sense all created beings likewise existed in God from everlast 
ing ; yet Tertullian in such wise distinguishes these from the 
Wisdom of God, as clearly to teach that the latter subsisted 
eternally in God Himself 3q , the former are and ever were 3 in ipso 
external 4 to Him. What shall be said of the fact, that, just * 

before in that very chapter, he had expressly said, that in the Deum. 

stead of matter, which Hermogenes held to be eternal, there 

had been present with God His own Wisdom, and that as 

the Spirit subsisting in Him, which alone knew His mind, 

and was to Him a counsellor, (which manifestly intimate the 

distinct personality of God the Father and His Wisdom,) and 

also as equal to Him, and of the same condition 5 or nature 5 status. 

with Him*? " If matter/ he says, " is necessary to God for the 

works of the world, as Hermogenes thought, God possessed 

matter of far greater worth and fitness, not to be judged of 

in the schools of philosophers 6 , but to be understood in the 6 apud phi- 

schools of the prophets 7 , even His own Wisdom. This, in losop j^ 

fine, alone had cognizance of the mind of the Lord ; for who 7 ^ , ro _ 

knoweth the things of God, and what are in Him, save the phetas. 

Spirit who is in Him ? Now Wisdom is the Spirit ; She was 

His counsellor ; She is the way of understanding and know 

ledge ...... Who would not rather commend her as the 

fount and origin of all things, and the matter of all matter, 
not subjected to Him, not different in condition 8 [or nature] " 8 statu - 
&c. ? The Wisdom of God, therefore, which existed always 
actually 9 in God, Tertullian says was then, as it were, born 9 actu. 
and made, "when It [Wisdom] began to be moved to and 

* Si necessaria est Deo materia ad qui in ipso ? Sophia autem Spiritus ; 

opera mundi, ut Hermogenes existi- haec illi consiliarius fuit, via intelli- 

mavit, habuit Deus materiam longe gentiae et scientiae ipsa est. . . . Quis 

digniorem et idoneiorem, non apud non hanc potius omnium fontem et 

philosophos festimandam, sed apud originem commendet, materiam vero 

prophetasintelligendam, Sophiam suam materiarum, non sibi subditam, non 

scilicet. Haec denique sola cognovit statu diversam, &c. [Adv. Herm., c. 

sensum Domini: quis enim scit quae xviii. p. 239.] 
sunt Dei, et quae in ipso, nisi Spiritus 


514 The Word being born is His being put forth at the creation. 

ON THE fro in the mind of God, for the purpose of setting in order 
C Nir E Y o*~ the works of the world ;" that is to say, when, at the will 
THE SON. O f the Father, It [Wisdom] began, as it were, to call up, to 
exercise and to exert Its energy and power in the creation 
of all things; or, according to Athenagoras, when the un- 
create and eternal Word (the same who is also called the 
Wisdom of God, as Tertullian himself, as we shall presently 
see, allows) " went forth from God to be the idea and energy 
of creation." Tertullian does indeed explain this mystery in a 
gross and almost impious way, if you look at his words [only] ; 
as if, indeed, the Wisdom of God had gone forth to create the 
universe, not without some agitation, and, as it were, moving 
of the Divine Essence, going before. But it is TertuUian s 
usual way fearlessly to attribute corporeal affections to God. 
Hence certain learned men have thought that Tertullian really 
believed that God was of a corporeal nature ; with whom how 
ever I do not myself agree. But it ought not to seem strange 
to any one that Tertullian here speaks so disrespectfully of 
the Wisdom of God, as if It had been agitated within God, 
before It issued forth to make the creatures, seeing that in 
another passage in this same book he attributes even to God 
1 quendam, the Father a kind of 1 exertion, effort, and labour in the forma 
tion of the universe. For when Hermogenes, chap. 44, alleges 
that God made this world simply by " appearing to and 
[642] drawing near to matter"," Tertullian (as though he cared 
little what he said about God, provided only he could con 
tradict his adversary) replies thus in chap. 45 v : "Do not," 
he says, " so natter God as to suppose Him to have produced 
so many and great substances by mere sight and mere ap 
proach, and not to have created them by His own proper 
strength. For thus does Jeremiah also set it before us x , c God 
making the earth in His might, preparing the world by His 
understanding, hath stretched out the heavens also by His 

u ["facit mundum . . . solummodo ligentia sua,et suo sensu extendit ccelum. 

adparens et adpropinquans ei . . . ad- Hae sunt vires ejus, quibus enixus to- 

parendo et adpropinquando materise," turn hoc condidit. Major est gloria 

P. 248.] ejus, si laboravit. Denique septima 

v Noli ita Deo adulari, ut velis ilium die requievit ab operibus. Utrumque 

solo visu et solo accessu tot ac tantas suo more. [p. 249.] 

substantias potulisse, et non propriis x [Jeremiah, li. 15, also x. 12 ; where 

viribus instituisse. Sic enim et Hie- the last clause is rendered " by His 

remias commendat; Deus faciens te.r- discretion;" the old Latin version, 

ram in valentia sua, parans orbem Intel- used by Tertullian has, suo sensu.~] 


suo more. 

In what sense Tert. attributes corporeal affections to God. 515 

Mind. This is His strength, by exerting which He made this BOOK m. 
universe. Greater is His glory in that He laboured. Lastly, 4j * 5> 
on the seventh day He rested from His works. Both [labour TERTUL- 
and rest] after His own proper manner 1." But is it really [ 
so? did God exert His strength to create this universe? 
will God s glory really be the greater if He be said to have 
laboured in the creation of the world ? is any thing difficult 
for God? But here is the writer s cunning 2 . He meant 2 astutiam. 
these considerations to be of force, so far as they could be 
of force, against his adversary, cautiously reserving to him 
self meanwhile, the refuge, as it were, of a catholic sense. 
God, he says, laboured in creating the world, He rested after 
creating it, " both after His own proper manner." Now he 
knew that, if he had candidly and ingenuously explained 
this " manner/ almost the whole force of his reasoning would 
have fallen to the ground ; and therefore he abstained from 
such an explanation in this place. In other passages, how 
ever, he clearly unfolds his really catholic view concerning 
God; for instance, in his treatise against Praxeas, c. x.y 
" Absolutely nothing," he says, " is difficult to God." And 
afterwards in the same passage ; " with God to be able is to 
will; and not to be able is not to will." So when he says 
that, when God was about to create the world, His Wisdom 
was agitated within Him, without doubt he meant "after 
His own proper manner." For in very deed that exertion 
and labour of God in order to create the universe, of which 
Tertullian speaks in the one passage, is just the same as that [643] 
agitating of the Divine Wisdom for the setting in order the 
works of the world, whereof he treats in the other. 

5. That this reply of ours is most true I shall further 
clearly prove from certain other passages of Tertullian, in 
which he teaches that the Hypostasis or Person itself of the 
Logos, Reason, Word, Wisdom, and Son of God, (for he applies 237 
all these names to the same Person,) existed from everlasting 
with 3 God the Father and in 4 Him; and moreover, that that 3 cum. 
Divine Person, when the Father willed, went forth from 5 4 a ? ud> 

5 r>Y 

Him for the creation of the universe ; and in consequence 

of that going forth was called the Word 6 , and Son of God. 6 Sermo. 

y Plane nihil Deo difficile. . . . Dei posse, velle est ; et non posse, nolle. 
[p. 505.] 



1 disposi- 

tions in the 
;ad " 

note e ] 19 
3 sermo. 


516 Passages shewing that Tertullian held the distinct 

Before I bring forward these passages, I think it right to 
forewarn the reader, not to expect [to find] in them the ortho- 
dox doctrine delivered by Tertullian, in a manner perfectly 
pure, sincere, and irreprehensible. Rather he will there find 
golden veins, as it were, of catholic tradition mixed with 
some dross. Tertullian holds the foundation itself of the 
doctrine, at the same time building upon it, as his manner 
is, wood, hay, stubble. Having premised this, I proceed to 
the passages themselves. In chap. v. of his treatise against 
Praxeas he proves that the Father is distinct in Person from 
the Son, from the reasoning of certain persons who asserted 
that in the beginning of Genesis it is thus written in the 
Hebrew ; " In the beginning God made unto Himself a 
Son." But however weak that argument be, he says that 
there are others supplied from that disposition l of God, 
which preceded the generation, or going forth of the Son 
from the Father 2 . "For before all things," he says, "God 
was alone, Himself [being] unto Himself universe and place 
and all things ; and [He was] alone, because there was 
nothing else external [to Him] besides Himself. Yet not 
even then [was He] alone ; for He had with Him that which 
He had within Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. -For 
God is rational, and Reason was in Him first, and so all 
things were from Him; this Reason is His thought 2 ; this 
^ Greeks ca ^ ~^oyo<f, which term we use also for Word 3 
[Discourse.] And therefore it is now usual with our peo- 
pie, owing to the simplicity of the translation, to say, 
that the Word 4 was in the beginning with God, whereas 
it is more suitable to regard Reason as more ancient ; be- 
cause God had not Word 5 from the beginning, but He had 
Reason 6 even before the beginning; and because Word 
Itself also, consisting of Reason, shews It [Reason] to be 

z Ante omnia enim Deus erat solus, 
ipse sibi etmundus, et locus, etomnia; 
solus autem, quia nihil aliud extrin- 
secus prseter ilium. Caeterum ne tune 
quidem solus; habebat enim secum, 
quam habebat in semetipso, Rationem 
suam scilicet. Rationalis enim Deus, 
et Ratio in ipso prius, et ita ab ipso 
omnia; quae ratio sensus ipsius est. 
Hauc Graeci \6yov dicunt; quo voca- 
bulo etiam Sermonem appellamus. 

Ideoque jam in usu est nostrorum, per 
simplicitatem interpretationis, Sermo- 
nera dicere in primordio apud Deum 
fuisse, cum magis Rationem competat 
antiquiorem haberi; quia non sermo- 
nalis a principle, sed rationalis Deus 
etiam ante principium : et quia ipse 
quoque Sermo Ratione consisteris, pri- 
orein earn, ut substantiam suam, osten- 
dat. Tamen et sic, nihil interest. Nam 
etsi Deus nondum Sermonem suum 



Personal Subsistence of the Word with God from eternity. 517 

prior, as [being] Its substance. However, even this makes BOOK in. 
no [real] difference. For, although God had not yet sent His 
Word 1 , [yet] on that account He had Him within Himself, 
together with, and in His Reason Itself, silently planning LIAN - 
and disposing with Himself, what He was afterwards about nem rm 
to speak through His Word 2 . For devising and disposing to- 2 Sermo- 
gether with His own Reason, He was causing that to become nem 
Word [Discourse], which He was dealing with in the way of 
Discourse 3 . And in order that thou mayest the more easily 3 Sermo- 
understand this, consider first from thine own self, as from an 
image and likeness of God, that reason which thou thyself also 
hast in thyself, thou that art a rational animal, being, that is 
to say, not only made by a rational artificer, but even ani 
mated from His substance. Observe a , that when thou thyself 
art silently conversing with thyself, this very process is car 
ried on within thee b by reason, she meeting thee together with 
a word 4 at every movement of thy thought, and every impulse * cum ser- 
of thy conception 5 . Whatsoever thou thinkest, there is word, 
whatsoever thou conceivest, there is reason. It cannot be 
but thou must speak that in thy mind ; and when thou [so] 
speakest, thou hast 6 a word conversing with thee, in which 6 pateris. 
[word] there is that very reason, whereby in thinking thou 
speakest with that [word] , through which [word] in speaking 
thou thinkest. So in a certain way the word is a second 
[person] within thee, through whom in thinking thou speak 
est, and through whom in speaking thou thinkest. The word 
itself is another [than thyself.] How much more fully then [645] 
is this carried on in God, of whom thou also art counted 7 as 7 censeris. 

miserat, proinde eum cum ipsa et in Loquaris illud in animo, necesse est ; 

ipsa Ratione intra seinetipsum habe- et dum loqueris, conlocutorem pateris 

bat, tacite cogitando et disponendo se- sermonem, in quo inest haec ipsa ratio, 

cum, quae per Sermonem mox erat qua cum eo cogitans loquaris, per quern 

dicturus. Cum Ratione enim sua co- loquens cogitas. Ita secundus quo- 

gitans atque disponens, Sermonem earn datnmodo in te est sermo, per quern 

efficiebat, quam Sermone tractabat. loqueris cogitando, et per quern cogitas 

Idque quo facilius intelligas ex teipso, loquendo; ipse sermo alius est. Quanto 

ante recognosce, ut ex imagine et simi- ergo plenius hoc agitur in Deo, cujus 

litudine Dei, quam habeas et tu in tu quoque imago et similitude cense- 

temetipso rationem, qui es animal ra- ris, quod habeat in se etiam tacendo 

tionale, a rationali scilicet artifice non Rationem, et in Ratione Sermonem ? 

tantum factus, sed etiam ex substantia possum itaque non temere praestrux- 

ipsius animatus. Vide quum tacitus isse, et tune Deum ante universitatis 

tecum ipse congrederis, ratione hoc constitutionem solum non fuisse,&c. 

ipsum agi intra te, occurrente ea tibi [pp. 502, 503.] 

cum sermone ad omnem cogitatus tui a Quoted above, p. [561,] and be- 

motum, et ad omnem sensus tui pul- low, p. [619.] 
sum. Quodcumque cogitaveris, sermo b See section ii. 9. 21. [p. 275.] 
est; quodcumque senseris, ratio est. 

518 i. God alone, only in respect of beings external to Himself. 

ON THE the image and likeness, in that He has within Him reason 
^ITY^F" even in silence, and in reason a word. I may therefore 
THE SON. w ithout rashness 1 first lay down this [as a settled prin- 
1 possum c iple 2 , that even then, before the creation of the universe, 
God was not alone/ &c. After a few words about that 






= praestrux- agitating of the Reason or Wisdom of God, which I ex 
plained a little above, and of what he calls the separation 
of the same, he proceeds further, in chap, vi., in these 
words c ; "When first it pleased God to put forth into their 
respective substances and forms the things which He had set 
in order within Himself, together with the Reason of Wisdom 
and the Word, He first put forth the Word Himself, having 
3 indivi- within Him His own inseparable 3 Reason and Wisdom, in 
duas suas. orc | er fa^ ^\\ things might be made through Him, through 
whom they had been planned and disposed, yea, and already 
made, so far forth as in the mind of God. For this was [stilll 
wanting to them, that they should be also openly known, and 
apprehended in their own forms and substances. Then there- 
speciem fore the Word Himself also assumes His own form and garb 4 , 
m sound and vocal utterance, when God saith, Let there be 
light/ This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when ,He 
proceeds from God," &c. 

6. In these words of Tertullian very many things are 
to be noted. In the first place, Tertullian teaches that in 
that " disposition," as he is fond of calling it, in which He 
was before the foundation of the world, up to the generation 
of the Son, (that [generation], I mean, of which he after 
wards treats,) God was " alone" in this sense only, " because 
there was nothing else external [to Him] besides Himself;" 
that is to say, there existed not as yet any created being. 
In another respect He affirms that God " was not even then 
alone," since He had with Him, but within Himself, another 
with whom to hold converse, Him, that is, who is called His 
Reason, in Greek, \6yos. Secondly, from this it clearly 
follows, that when Tertullian says that God had from ever- 

c Ut primum Deus voluit ea quse eis deerat, ut coram quoque in suis 

cum sophiae ratione et Sermone dispo- speciebus atque substantiis cognosce- 

suerat intra se^, in substantias et species rentur et tenerentur. Tune igitur etiam 

suas edere, ipsum primum protulit ipse Sermo speciem et ornatum suum 

Sermonem, habentem in se individuas sumit, sonum et vocem, cum dicit 

suas, Rationem et sophiam, ut per Deus, fiat lux. Haec est nativitas per- 

ipsum fierent universa, per quern erant fecta Sermonis, dum ex Deo procedit, 

cogitata atque disposita, imo et facta &c. [p. 503.] 
iam, quantum in Dei sensu. Hoc enim 

ii. The Logos which was with Him was not mere Reason. 519 

lasting with Him and in Him Reason or Logos, he by no BOOK in 
means understood that very Reason 1 , from [having] which 5%* 
God the Father is called rational 2 , in other words that TERTUL- 
very Reason which we conceive of in God, (who is eternal * 
Mind,) as His form 3 , that is to say, the very mind of the 2 
Father ; although Petavius will in every case have this to be [646] 
the meaning of expressions of this sort in the ancients. For 3 velut 
how frivolous, how unmeaning, how absolutely nought, is r * 
this mode of proof; God was not alone before the creation 
of the world ; because even at that time He was rational ! 
It follows that Tertullian, together with those fathers whose 
views I have explained above, most certainly meant in this 
place the Logos which existed eternally in and with God 
the Father " through His rational Power d ;" and conse 
quently was not His rational Power Itself. This he him 
self intimates not obscurely in those words ; " For God is 
rational, and Reason was in Him first;" which words are 
quite parallel to those of Athenagoras, [speaking] of God the 
Father before the foundation of the world : " He Himself had 
within Himself His Logos [Word or Reason], being eter 
nally possessed of reason 4 ." The expressions of neither of 4 \oyiKbs. 
these two writers can without manifest tautology be explained 
otherwise than in this way : God, before the foundation of 
the world, and so from everlasting, was possessed of 5 ra- 5 pollebat. 
tional Power ; therefore the Logos [Word or Reason] was in 
and with Him eternally, as necessarily flowing forth from 
that rational Power of God. And what follows a little after 
in Tertullian has the same bearing ; " And this Reason is 
His thought 66 ." For in this place sensus is the evvoia of the 6 quag ra- 
Greeks, whom Tertullian every where imitates, which is dis- ip sius est> 
tinguished from the mind itself. So afterwards in his com 
parison of man with God, he says, " Whatsoever thou con- 
ceivest there is reason." But he means a really subsisting 7 
evvoia, as we shall presently see. In the third place, Ter- 


tullian observes that the Logos, which is the name of the 

Son of God, signifies both Reason* and Word*, and that both 8 Ratio. 

9 Sermo. 

A dici hoyiKrjs Swcfytefius. [Tatian, mind must needs have in it from eter- 

Orat. cont. Graecos. 5, p. 247 ; see nity an svvoia. or \6yos, a notion or 

above, ch. 6. 1.] conception of itself, which the Schools 

e [or " consciousness." See Bp. term verbum mentis ; nor can it be con- 
Bull s Discourses, i. p. 5. "An eternal ceived without it."] 




2 voce. 

3 Sermo. 

4 Deum 

nalem a 

5 Se rmo- 

6 Sermo. 

7 Sermoni. 


520 iii., iv. Reason Word of God distinguished, yet the same. 

meanings are applicable to the Son of God ; inasmuch as He 
is both the Reason of God, eternally sprung from and be- 
gotten of the rational Power of God; and the Word of God, 
as having been put forth from Him at a definite time 1 in 
voca ] utterance 2 for the creation of the universe ; and in 
the former sense he allows that it is truly said, that the 
Logos was in the beginning with God ; but not so in the 
latter sense. At the same time, whilst he makes this re 
mark, Tertullian himself admits, that " It is usual with qur 
people," (i. e. the Christians,) " through the simplicity of 
the translation, to say, that the Word 3 was in the be 
ginning " (that is, from everlasting) " with God." It ap 
pears then, that the great mass of Christians, in the time 
of Tertullian, both said and believed simply, that the Word 
existed eternally with God. Would that this great man had 
not in this matter been wise above the common mass of 
Christians ! Would that he had been content with that 
simplicity of translation ! Meanwhile Tertullian, wise above 
the mass, agrees with the mass in the thing itself; conse 
quently the cause is uninjured. For, in the fourth place, 
although he does thus distinguish between Reason and 
Word, as to lay it down that Reason is prior to Word, and 
that God had not a Word from the beginning, but only had 
Reason 4 ; yet he forthwith corrects himself, as it were, and 
a ^ Du ^ confesses that this distinction is a vain subtil ty and 
a me re contest about words ; seeing that he says that it 
makes no difference, whether one say that the Word 5 was 
i n the beginning with God, or Reason. He adds, however, 
this as a ground for what he had said, that in reality the 
Word 8 Himself, namely the inner W^ord, was in the begin 
ning with God, although He was then at last sent forth by 
God, when He went forth from Him for the creation of the 
universe. So that that generation, immediately preceding 
the creation of the world, which Tertullian attributes to the 
Word 7 or Son of God, was not the production of Him who 
previously existed not, but only His mission, or sending forth 
from God to produce the creatures. 

7. In the fifth place, Tertullian expressly says that the 
Word consists of Reason, and that Reason is the substance 
of the Word ; namely, that [Reason] which, as I said, was 

v. Relation of the Names, vi. Eternal personality of the Word. 521 

eternally begotten of the rational Power of God. Now by BOOK m. 
the substance of the Word, as we shall most evidently c 6*7^" 
shew hereafter, Tertullian meant the very Hypostasis 6 or TERTUL _ 
Person of the Word. The Word of God, therefore, was a "AN. 
substance or hypostasis, subsisting from everlasting in God. 
But, you will say, how then does Tertullian say that Reason, 
as the substance of the Word, was anterior to [the Word] 
Itself? was the Word a Person before the Word existed? 
Yes, certainly, according to Tertullian s mind ; this very thing 
was precisely what Tertullian meant ; the Word existed in 
His substance or hypostasis before He became the Word, 
that is to say, before He proceeded forth from God with 
vocal utterance and sound for the creation of this universe. 
In the sixth place, Tertullian no less clearly teaches that the 
Word, even anterior to that His mission and going forth 
from God the Father, existed with 1 the Father as a Person apud. 
distinct from Him. This indeed follows from our first and 
second observations; for when Tertullian proves that God 
the Father was not alone before the creation of the world, 
by this reasoning, that even then He had with Him His Logos, 
he manifestly intimates that that Logos was even then an 
other Person 2 , though not another thing 3 , from God the z alium. 
Father f , whose Logos He was. For he only is properly 3 aliud - 
said not to be alone, with whom there is another person 
present ; and if through all that eternity, so to speak, which 
preceded the creation of the world, God was unipersonal 4 , 4 p-ovoirp6- 
and there was not in the Divine Essence one and another 5 , 5 a j ius at _ 
then indeed God must be said to have been at that time alto- que alius. 
gether alone, not only externally, in that there was not any 
other thing 6 external to Him, which Tertullian allows; but 6 aliud. 
also internally, in that there was not another Person 7 in Him, 7 alius. 
which the same Tertullian decidedly denies. But it is unneces 
sary for us to treat it as a matter of inference ; for Tertullian 
presently after teaches expressly that the Word 8 before the 8 Sermo- 
creation of the world, and so before His mission, was another ne ^lV,q-| 
Person from 9 God the Father, whose Word He was. This he 9 alium a 

e [Substantia corresponding etymolo- and unum in Tertullian, adv. Prax., c. 

gically to hypostasis; see above, book 25, p. 515, quoted above by Grabe on 

ii. ch. 8. 7. p. 347.] book ii. ch. 7. 8. p. 205, note t.] 
f [See the like distinction of unus 


522 The Word existed as another Person from the Father. 

THE explains by an illustration derived from man, the image of 
C NiT E Y T oF~ God, wbo whilst he is thinking, before he utters and puts 
THE SON. f or th his word, has it within in his mind, as it were one 
239 conversing with him ; and that in such a manner as that the 
word seems to be, in a certain sense, another and a second 
person from the man himself. " The word itself/ he says, 
" is in a certain way a second [person] within thee, through 
whom in thinking thou speakest, and through whom in 
speaking thou thinkest. The word itself is another [than 
thyself."] And he immediately subjoins g, " How much 
more fully then is this carried on in God, of whom thou 
also art counted as the image and likeness 11 ?" as though he 
should say, That, of which a kind of shadow is seen in thee, 
a man, is found in God in very deed; the inner word of 

1 alius. man is, as it were, another person * from the man himself; 

but the Word of God is absolutely, entirely, and in very 

2 alius a. deed another Person from 2 God the Father, whose Word 

He is. But that all that he had up to this point been say 
ing respecting the Word of God, refers to the Word Him 
self in so far as He existed in God before the creation of 
the world and eternally, Tertullian explicitly declares in the 
following words : " I may, therefore," says he, " without rash 
ness, first lay down this [as a settled principle], that even 
then, before the creation of the universe, God was not alone," 
&c. In these words, I repeat, he intimates that all that he 
had said before refers to this point, to shew that in that state, 
if it is allowable so to speak, in which God existed until the 
going forth of the Word from Him to create the world, He was 
not solitary; forasmuch as He had with Him from everlasting 
[650] that same Word existing in Him, with whom to hold con 
verse, and, as it were, discourse. 

8. Seventhly, Tertullian proceeds clearly to intimate that 

5 See above, p. 518. do not transfuse our own essence into 

" God willed that traces of Himself those images, and those thoughts are 

should be visible in man, and if the sudden and evanescent acts. But the 

nature of man had retained its primal eternal Father, contemplating Himself, 

light, it would have been no obscure begets the thought of Himself, which 

mirror of the Divine nature. And yet is the image of Himself, and that not 

even now in this darkness, some traces evanescent, but subsisting, [His Own] 

may be marked. The mind of man in essence being communicated to it." 

thinking presently paints the image of Melancth., Loc. Theol. de Filio, [Op., 

the object of its thoughts; we, however, vol. i. p. 152.] 

vii. The Word sent forth is the eternal Logos in God. 523 

the Word, which existed with God under the name of BOOK m. 
Reason from eternity, and the Word which was sent, or 7* 8 X * 
sent forth, or proceeded forth from God, when He willed, TERTUL- 
to create the universe, is altogether one and the same Word LIAN> 
of God in Person l ; a position which, as I have often re- * /COT M- 
marked, strikes a death-blow at the Arian heresy. For he *" 
declares, as I have just before observed, that the Word con 
sists of Reason, of that [Reason], namely, which eternally 
flowed forth from "the rational power of God," in other words, 
from the Divine Mind ; and that that very Reason is the 
substance of the Word, that is, of Him who at a definite time 2 2 aliquando. 
went forth with vocal utterance from God to create the world. 
But that by the substance of the Word (which he also calls 
body, corpus j ) Tertullian meant the very Hypostasis or Per 
son of the Word, I again pledge myself to shew clearly in 
its proper place. But that very thing, namely, that the Word 
and Reason of God are the same Person, Tertullian most 
explicitly affirms in the following words k , [which occur] 
after those I cited from the seventh chapter : " The Son, 
in His own Person, under the name of Wisdom, acknow 
ledges the Father ; The Lord created Me the beginning of 
His ways, for His works ; and before all the hills did He beget 
Me/ For if indeed Wisdom in this place seem to say that 
She was created by the Lord, for His works and ways, and 
it is elsewhere shewn, that by the Word 3 all things were 3 [John 
made, and without Him was not anything made/ as also 1 3 - 
again, by His Word were the heavens established, and all 
the host 4 of them by His Spirit/ that is to say 6 , by that 4 vires. 
Spirit which was in the Word ; it appears that it is one and 5 utl( 3 ue - 
the same Power, one while under the name of Wisdom, an- [651] 
other while under the appellation of Word, which received 
the beginning of His ways for the works of God, and which 
established the heavens, by which all things were made and 

1 [Ut ita dixerim, Sermonis corpus ostenditur omnia facta esse, et sine illo 

est Spiritus. Adv. Prax., c. viii. p. 504, nihilfactum ; sicut et rursum, Sermone 

quoted below, 13. p. 533.] ejus cceli confirmati sunt, et Spiritu ejus 

k Filius ex sua persona profitetur omnes vires eorum, utique eo Spiritu qui 

Patrem in nomine Sophias; Domimts Sermoni inerat ; apparet unam ean- 

condidit me initium viarum in opera sua ; deinque vim esse nunc in nomine So- 

ante omnes autem colles generavit me. phiae, nunc in appellatione Sermonis, 

IS am si hie quidem Sophia videtur di- quae initium accepit viarum in Dei 

cere conditam se a Domino in opera et opera, et quae ccelum confirmavit, per 

vias ejus, alibi autem per Sermonem quam omnia facta sunt, et sine qua 

524 Same Divine Person called Reason, Wisdom, Word, Spirit. 

ON THE without which nothing was made. Nor need we dwell longer 
C NIT E Y E OF" upon this, as if He were not spoken of under the name both of 
THE SON. Wisdom, and of Reason, and of all the Divine Soul and Spirit," 
&c. Here, I say, he clearly teaches that in those passages of 
Scripture in which mention is made either of Wisdom, or of 
Reason, or of the Word, (for by the term Logos he had already 
remarked that both Reason and the Word are meant in the 
Evangelist John,i. 1,) He, I mean, the Son of God, is spoken of; 
and that by all these names the same Divine Soul and Spirit qf 
God is designated. Parallel to these are the words you read 
in his treatise on Prayer, at the very beginning 1 , " The Spirit 
of God/ he says, " and the Word of God, and the Reason of 
God, and the Word of Reason, and the Reason and Spirit of 
the Word, are both Jesus Christ our Lord/ &c. ; where the 
expressions, "the Word of Reason, and the Reason and Spirit 
of the Word," indicate that the Word is the operation of 
Reason and Spirit ; and that Reason and Spirit are the very 
substance and hypostasis of Him, who is called the Word, 
as we shall afterwards see. But under both appellations, 
namely, that of the Reason or Spirit of God, and that of the 
Word of God, he expressly affirms that the same [Person}, 
our Lord, is designated. See, however, what we have said in 
book i. chap. ii. 5. [p. 47,] on the appellation Spirit of 
God, as used by the ancients for the Godhead or Divine Per 
son Itself of the Son of God. 

9. And in all this Tertullian has treated the subject in a 
catholic and orthodox manner : nevertheless, both in the 
240 passages which we quoted above, and in other places of 
his treatise against Praxeas, he has interspersed some state 
ments which appear to be quite repugnant to these observa 
tions of ours, and of which we must now proceed to treat. 
[652] In the first place, in chap, vi., he expressly teaches that 
the Wisdom of God, the second Person, was then created, 
when It began to be agitated in God, and afterwards went 
forth with vocal utterance from God, to create the universe. 
My answer is, the Logos is said by Tertullian to have 

nihil^factum est. Nee diutius de isto ; Dei Spiritus, et Dei Sermo, et Dei 

quasi non de ipso sit sermo, et in Ratio, Sermo Rationis et Ratio Ser- 

Spphiae, et in Rationis, et in omnis monis et Spiritus, utrumque Jesus 

divini animi et Spiritus nomine. [p. Christus Dominus noster. [p. 129. J 
503. J 

i. Word created ; i.e. manifested in distinct Personality. 525 

become, by His going forth, second from the Father, not BOOK m. 
as though He did not subsist previously, and so from ever- ^^ p* 
lasting, as a Person in the Divine Essence distinct from the TERTUL- 
Father ; (for all that we have hitherto treated of is opposed LIAN - 
to such an idea ;) but because by that going forth, His dis 
tinct Personality, so to speak, was manifested. For most 
true is the comment of the very learned Andrew Rivet, to 
wards the conclusion of his third dissertation 1 , on that pas- Exerci- 
sage of Genesis, God said, Let there be light ; " For," he tatio> 
says, " as the visible mission of the Son in time argues His 
mission made by generation from everlasting, so the speak 
ing 2 of the Father in time, that is, His manifestation by 2 locutio. 
effect 3 , argues the Word begotten from eternity. That 3 P er effec ~ 
speaking 4 therefore in time is not begetting the Son, but 4 aicere. 
producing things which existed not as yet, through the 
Son begotten from everlasting of the Father ; according to 
that declaration of Scripture which attributes the produc 
tion of all things that were made to the uncreated Wisdom 
and eternal Word, Prov. viii. 22, 23 ; John i. 1, passages in 
which the eternity of thatWord is asserted. The Son of God, 
therefore, was the Word from eternity, not that God from 
eternity spoke through Him, but because it was always fit 
ting 5 that through Him the Father should speak, and com- 5 aptum ut 
mand whatever He would have done/ Indeed Tertullian ex- " 

plains himself in the same way in another passage in this very queretur. 
book, chap. 12 m . "But," he says, "how is it written in re 
spect of the previous works of the world ? At the first indeed, 
the Son not yet appearing [it is written], And God said, Let 
there be Light, and there was Light/ [viz.] the Word Him 
self forthwith, the true Light, which lighteneth [every] man 
that cometh into this world, and through Him [was there] 
the light, that is, of the world also. But from that time God [653] 
willed that it should be made in Christ the Word, standing 
by Him, and ministering unto Him, and God made it." 
Here, observe, he does not say the Son " not yet existing," 
but not "yet appearing." Now when he says in the same 

m Seel in antecedentibus operibus hominem venientem in hunc mundum, 

mundi quomodo scriptum est ? Primum et per ilium mundialis quoque lux. 

quidem, nondum Filio apparente, Et Exinde autem in Sermone Christo ad- 

dixit Deus, Fiat lux, et facia est, ipse sistente et administrate Deus voluerit 

statim Serin o lux vera, quas illuminat fieri, et Deus fecit. [p. 506.] 

526 He existed before the time when He is said to be created. 

ON THE place, that the Word Himself was made then, when God said, 
CO-ETER- a L et there be Light," we must understand, in so far as He 
T N HE Y SON. was Word, that is, in so far as He went forth from the Father 
~ with vocal utterance, as Tertullian thought. For if you do 
not thus interpret Tertullian, you will fasten on him a no 
tion too absurd, and one which is altogether repugnant to 
what he has himself said in other places. For God said not 
" Let there be Light," before He had created that rude and 
unordered mass of things. First He made that original 
material of all things; then He said, "Let there be Light." 
So that if the Word was then at length in very deed 
made, that is, began to exist in His own substance and 

1 hypostasi. Person ] , when God said, "Let there be Light," He was 

younger and later than that original matter. But this Ter 
tullian always, even in his treatise against Hermogenes, em 
phatically denied ; this is too well known to require me 
to quote the actual passages. But, you will ask, How is 
it that Tertullian says that the Son of God did then at 
length appear, when God said, " Let there be Light ?" I 
reply, Although it may be very difficult to explain clearly all 

2 <rKOTfii>ov. that is said by this obscure and truly " dark 2 " author, (as He- 

raclitus was called of old,) I am yet disposed to put before the 
reader a conjecture of my own. The Son of God, so far forth 
as He is the eternal Reason and the eternal Wisdom of God, 
then first began to appear, when He undertook wisely, and 
with reason, to arrange, to set in order, and to adorn that 
matter which was yet unordered, and lying in a confused 
mass. From out of that miscellaneous heap of things, called 

3 Sophia et chaos, the Wisdom and prudence 3 of God had not yet shone 
sapientia. fo^ which did afterwards beam forth most clearly, when 

[654] that primal light (an image, as it were, of the Son of God, 
who is the brightness of the Eternal Light) shed lustre upon 
matter, and afterwards each several thing was clothed in 
form and as it were in vesture of its own. Thus indeed does 
Rivet, whom I have just mentioned, at the conclusion of 

4 Exerci- the said dissertation 4 , interpret this very passage of Genesis. 

For in answer to the question, why Moses then first intro 
duces God as speaking, when he is treating of light, although 
the eternal Word acted together with the Father in creating 
that mass [chaos] ? he says, " Moses then made mention of 

Matter itself held by Tert. to have been created by Him. 527 

the Word, because it is in reducing chaos into order 1 that BOOK m. 
His Wisdom is most conspicuous." Hence, as we have H K A 9 x * 
shewn above", some of the ancients attributed in a special TERTUL- 
sense to God the Father the creation of matter out of nothing, LIAN - 
and to the Son the adorning of it : at the same time allowing diTtinc* 
that it was through the Son 2 that the Father had made the tione - 
original matter itself, and together with the Son 3 set in order \^ F 
and adorned matter. Hence also by Athenagoras " the going 3 cum Fi- 
forth of the Word," on account of which He is called " the ll0 
First offspring of God," is laid down as posterior to the pro 
duction of matter; inasmuch as it was for the purpose of 
adorning it that the Word is said to have gone forth from God. 
Yet the same Athenagoras allows both that matter was made 
by God, and that all things were created through the Word, 
see chap. v. 2. of this book, [p. 435.] But, however this 
may be, it is certain that Tertullian was of opinion that the 
Logos subsisted in the Divine Essence, as a Person distinct 
from the Father, and another 4 than the Father, even before 4 alium. 
His going forth from the Father to produce created beings, 
and so from everlasting; this is evident, I say, not only 
from the observations which we have put before the reader 
above, but also from the most explicit testimony of Tertul 
lian himself, which you may read in the thirteenth chapter of 241 
the same book . "That is still more important 5 ," he says, 5 plus. 
" which you will find in the Gospel in so many words : In 
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, 
and the Word was God/ He who was is One, and He [655] 
with 6 whom He was is Another." It is most certain that 6 penes. 
Tertullian understood those words of John, f In the begin 
ning was the Word, and the Word was with God," (as he 
ought,) of that condition of the Word in which He existed 
before His going forth from God, and so from everlasting; 
as indeed we have already heard Tertullian explain himself. 
But in chap. viii. he lays open his view on this passage of John, 
if it be possible, with still greater clearness p . " The Word, 
therefore," he says, " was both in the Father always, as He 

n See book ii. 13. 10. [p. 354.] penes quern erat. [p. 507.] 

Ipsum plus est, quod in evangelic p Sermo ergo et in Patre semper, 

totidem invenies ; In principio erat Ser- sicut dicit, Ego in Patre ; et apud 

mo, et Sermo erat apud Deum, et Deus Deum semper, sicut scriptum est, Et 

erat Sermo. Unus, qui erat, et alius, Sermo erat apud Deum. [p. 504.] 


528 Passages shewing his belief that They are Two Persons. 

says, I am in the Father ; and with the Father always, as it 
is written, and the Word was with God/ Now from a 
comparison of these passages it is plain that Tertullian 
believed that the Word, so far as He always was with the 
Father, was another [Person 1 ] than the Father. "The 
Word/ he says, " was always with God ;" but he continues, 
" He who was is One, and He with whom He was is An 
other/ But one and another, I say, make up two; whence 
it follows that, according to Tertullian s view, the Logos was 
always, and from everlasting, a second [Person] in relation 
to the Father 2 . Just in the same way should Novatian be 
ex p] a i nec ^ or whoever was the author of the treatise on the 
Trinity, amongst the works of Tertullian, who certainly was 
an imitator of Tertullian. He distinctly teaches in chap. 31^, 
that the Word was always in such sense in the Father, as 
that the Father was always a Father, and regards the con 
trary assertion as an extreme absurdity; whence it neces 
sarily follows that the Son was always a Son, inasmuch as of 
two correlatives if one be allowed, the other is allowed als.o ; 
and it is certain that a Father and a Son constitute two Per 
sons. The same writer, however, having spoken presently 
afterwards in the same chapter of the going forth of the Son 
to create the universe, subjoins these words ; " God indeed, 
proceeding from God, making a second Person/ Now after 
what we have said about Tertullian, we shall require no 
[656] CEdipus to aid us to the right understanding of these words 
of Novatian. This, however, is by the way; I proceed to 
explain the remaining paradoxes of Tertullian. 

10. In the second place this seems open to blame inTertullian, 
that he makes the going forth of the Word from the Father 

3 separa- to have been a kind of separation 3 of Him from the Father. 

quandam. ^ or m cna P- 6 of his treatise against Praxeas, after treating of 
that agitation of Wisdom within God Himself, of which I have 
spoken above, applying to Him the words of Wisdom, as they 
are found in Solomon, " The Lord created Me the beginning 
of His ways, for His works," he presently subjoins these 
words r ; " know by the very separation that from this time 

q [Quoted above, chap. 8. 6. p. paratione cognosce, Cwro jDaran7,inquit, 
*77.j ^ ccelum, aderam illi simul.[p. 503.] 

r Dehinc adsistentem earn ipsa se- 

ii. Separation 3 of the Word a going forth in operation. 529 

She l was standing by, f When He was preparing the hea- BOOK m. 
vens, She says, I was present together with Him/" &c. J9_ii." 
Tertullian seems to have conceived in his mind, a kind TERTUL- 
of severing and separation 2 of the Son from the Father, LIAN - 

i -i i , i i -^1 earn [i.e. 

having previously been, as it were, shut up in and within wisdom.] 
the Father, such as that of the foetus from the mother s 2 secre- 
womb. This, however, is his old practice. He is arguing with quandam 

Praxeas, who denied that the Son is distinct in Person from t 
the Father ; and in opposition to him, in order to assert the 
distinction of Persons, he seems to introduce a separation of 
Them. But did Tertullian then believe that the Son ever 
was in very truth separated from the Father ? Far from it ; 
in very many places of this treatise he expressly maintains 
the contrary ; for instance, to omit other passages, in chap 
ter 8, in arguing against Praxeas, he says % " The Son [the 
Word] was always in the Father, and never separated from 
the Father/ 7 and shortly afterwards*; "This will be the 
putting forth 3 of [i. e. taught by] the truth, whereby we say, 3 probola, 
that the Son was put forth from the Father, but not sepa- V P^^ 
rated." In a word, according to Tertullian, the Son of God 
in His substance and hypostasis eternally was, is, and will be 
in God His Father; notwithstanding, He the same [Being], 
when the Father willed, went out, as it were, and issued from 
Him, in operation (tear Ivepyeiav), I mean ; (which going out 
of His Tertullian imagined to be, as it were, a kind of sepa 
ration;) that is, He exerted His almighty power and strength 
externally, ad extra, as the schools say, in the creation of [657] 
the world. Thus Tertullian explains himself in another place, 
where he says, that that Spirit of God, which is eternally in 
God, is the substance of the Word ; whilst the Word Him 
self, so far, that is, as He is the Word, is only the operation 
of that Spirit; but this passage we shall adduce, hereafter, 
in a more suitable place u . 

11. But, you will ask, what is to be made of those words 
of Tertullian, in which he expressly teaches, that the Word, 
at the time when He went forth from God to frame the 

8 Sermo in Patre semper, et nun- a Patre, non separatum. [p. 504. 

quam separatus a Patre. [p. 504. Bp. See above, book ii. ch. 7. 2. p. 195, 

Bull substituted Filivs for Sermo.] note p.] 

* Haec erit probola veritatis, [custos u [See below, 13. p. 533.] 
unitatis,] qua prolatum dicimus Filium 

BULL. M m 

530 iii. The words ( assuming His form ; how to be understood. 

ON THE creatures, " assumed His own form and garb 1 ?" I answer, 
CO-ETER- t ^ at T ertu uj an therein indeed expressed himself absurdly 

NITY OF , . _ . , 

THE SON, enough but yet, if you look to his meaning and view, with- 
1 omatum. out any suspicion of heresy. For he states immediately after, 
that by the "form and garb" of the Word he meant nothing 
else than sound and vocal utterance. "At that time therefore, 
the Word Himself also," he says, "assumes His own form and 
garb, SOUND and VOCAL UTTERANCE, when God saith, Let 
there be light/ " Excellent form indeed, excellent garb of the 
Word ! But thus, it seems, this great man thought it well to 
sport, as it were, and to follow after trifles in the case of the 
most august of all mysteries. At the same time he does not 
say as of created beings that the Word then assumed His 
substance ; inasmuch as by the name Word he quite under 
stood, as will be shewn hereafter, that the operation only, not 
the very substance or hypostasis, of the Son of God is desig 
nated. Nor indeed could Tertullian have believed, as we 
remarked a little before, that the Son of God assumed His 
substance and hypostasis at the time when God said, " Let 
there be light;" seeing that God said not, "Let there be 
light," until He had created the primal matter of the uni- 
242 verse ; and it is the well-known view of Tertullian, that the 
hypostasis of the Word, or Son of God, was more ancient 
than that primal matter; and, further, that matter was 
[658] created through the Son. In like manner, when Tertullian 
speaks of that going forth of the Word, as His "perfect 
nativity," we must understand so far forth as He was the 
Word. He was from everlasting the perfect Spirit of God, the 
perfect Reason of God ; but only then, as Tertullian thought, 
did He become the perfect Word of God, when by vocal 
utterance and sound He went forth from the Father to create 
the universe. Was it indeed possible that there should be 
any accession of real, and, so to speak, intrinsic perfection, to 
the eternal Reason of God ? Surely not. For, as Tertullian, 
in the opening of the 6th chap., says x ; " What more wise 
than the Reason of God ?" so I, too, would say ; What can 
be more perfect than the eternal Reason of God? 

12. With regard to those words of Tertullian, "by go 
ing forth from whom He became the Son," they are to be 

* Quid sapientius Ratione Dei. [p. 503.] 

iv. Became the Son; yet T. held His eternal origination. 531 

explained in precisely the same way, as we have a little be- BOOK IIJ - 
fore interpreted his statements respecting the distinct per- 11/12. 
sonality of the Son ; that is to say, that going forth of the TERTUL- 
Word out of 1 God the Father, together with the vocal sound, LIAN - 
" Let be," to form the creatures, was the manifestation of His 
eternal Sonship and going forth out of the Divine Mind. In 
that He was the eternal Reason of God, He was of God 2 , and 2 ex Deo. 
the co-eternal offspring of the eternal Mind; and since by 
this going forth out of the Divine Mind, He, by Tertullian/s 
confession, received His substance, it follows that that His 
eternal going forth was His generation, or production pro 
perly so called; and that the other going forth was only a 
manifestation, as I have said, of the former. Nor are we 
here bringing forward far-fetched or strained interpretations, 
but the very genuine sense of Tertullian himself. For that 
is Tertullian s own axiom, which we elsewhere 7 adduced; 
" Every origin is a parent, and every thing which is brought 
forth from 3 an origin is an offspring." But it is certain, 3 ex . 
that, according to Tertullian/s view, the Word, so far as He is 
the eternal Reason of God, had His origin as respects His [659] 
substance from 4 God ; in that He is the Reason of God, there- 4 ex< 
fore, He was the offspring of God, as God also was His parent. 
Accordingly, this same Tertullian, chap. xv. of the same 
treatise, declares 2 that the Word was "God of God," inas 
much as He was with God in the beginning, that is to say, 
always, as Tertullian himself, as we have seen, interprets it 
in another place. "The Word of life," he says, " became 
flesh, who before [that He became] flesh 5 was only the Word 5 ante ear- 
in the beginning with 6 God the Father, not the Father 6 n 
with the Word. For, although the Word was God, yet was 
He with 7 God, because He is God of God, because joined to 8 7 apud. 
the Father with 9 the Father 10 ." Here he also concludes that 8 cum - 
the Word, so far as He was always with God, was God of God, ic 
from the circumstance that the Word is said by John to Patre 
have existed with 11 the Father, not the Father with the Word. ^ 



y Omnis origo parens est, et omne dio apud Deura Patrem, non Pater 

quod ex origine profertur progenies est. apud Sermonem. Nam etsi Deus Ser- 

[Adv. Prax. c. 8. p. 504.] See this mo, sed apud Deum, quia ex Deo 

Book, chap. 5. 8. [p. 446.] Deus, quia cum Patre apud Patrem. 

z Sermo vitae caro factus, . . . qui [p. 509.] 
ante carnem Sermo tantum in primor- 

M m 2 

1 alius. 

2 alius. 

3 Domi- 

4 statu. 

5 adusque. 



quasi rb ac 

532 Tertullian held the eternal existence of the Son. 

And the argument is indeed excellent, seeing that the words 
" and the Word was with God," indicate not obscurely, that 
the Word always subsisted both with God and in God the 
Father, as [with and in] His author and principle. Again, in 
the 21st chap, of the same treatise, he thus comments on the 
same words of John 8 ; " For, if these words may not be taken 
otherwise than as they are written, there is without doubt 
shewn to be One 1 who was from the beginning, and Another 2 
with whom He was ; the Word of God one, another the Lotd 3 
(I suppose it should be read God*) ; "although the Word 
also is God, but in that He is the Son of God, not in that 
He is the Father." He here manifestly shews that the 
Word of God is said by John to have been in the beginning 
with God, and to have been God, in that He, as the Son, is 
distinguished from the Father. But that the words of John, 
"the Word was with God, and the Word was God," are to 
be understood of that condition 4 of the Word in which He 
existed from everlasting, up to 5 His going forth from the 
Father to create the universe, Tertullian himself has, as we 
have shewn above, openly acknowledged. Hence in the 
same chapter, a little after, he says in express terms that 
the Word, the Son of God, always existed; "Certainly," 
he says c , " He was always the Son of God ; but not He 6 
Himself whose Son He is." 

13. That all this may appear in a still clearer light, it is 
most carefully to be observed, that Tertullian looked to two 
things in the Son or Word of God; I mean His substance 
or hypostasis itself, which he also calls His body : and that 
which is, as it were, accidental to Him 7 . The substance or hy 
postasis itself of the Word and Son of God he stated to be the 
"Reason of God," and the "Spirit of God;" whereas that ex 
ternal putting forth, whereby with vocal utterance and sound 
He went forth from the Father to adorn the universe, and on 
account of which He is most properly called the Word of 

8 Nam si haec non aliter accipi licet, quomodo scripta suiit, indubi- 
tanter alius ostenditur, qui fuerit a 
principio, alius apud quern fuit ; alium 
Sermonem Dei, alium Dominum ; (pu- 
to legendumDewm, Bull ;) licet et Deus 
Sermo, sed qua Dei Filius, non qua 
Pater. [p. 511.] 

b [The editions of 1664 (instead of 
alium Sermonem Dei, alium Dominum,) 
read alium Sermonem esse, alium Deum ; 
" that the Word was one, God an 
other." B.] 

c Certe Filius Dei semper; sed non 
ipse cujus est filius. [pp. 511, 512.] 

The Hypostasis distinguished from what is accidental. 533 

God, he imagines to be, as it were, a sort of accident to Him ; BOOK in. 
and the substance indeed and hypostasis of the Word, in that "2^13! 
He is the Reason and Spirit of God, he freely admits to be TERTUL _ 
eternal, although he affirms that He was made the Word of "AN. 
God from a definite beginning. His words in chap. 8. are 
clear : he there quotes the passage of Scripture, " For who 
knoweth the things that are in God, but the Spirit, which 
is in Him?" and immediately adds d , "But the Word was 
framed 1 by the Spirit, and, if I may so say, the Spirit is ! structus. 
the body of the Word. The Word, therefore, is both always 
in the Father, as He says, I am in the Father / and always 
with God, as it is written, And the Word was with God/" 
Where, from these two hypotheses, namely, that the Spirit of 
God, which is in God, is the. body of the Word, and that 
this Spirit of God was in God always and was everlasting, 
{which latter hypothesis, although not expressed, he yet 
manifestly implies,) he concludes that the Word was always 
with God ; and this, as we shall presently see, in opposition 243 
to the Valentinians, who denied the eternity of the Word. [661] 
The Spirit of God, however, which he here designates the 
body of the Word, he elsewhere calls the substance of the 
Word; I mean in his Apology, chap. 21 e : "We," he says, 
" attribute the Spirit, as Its proper substance, to the Word, 
and Reason, and also Power 2 , whereby, as we have declared, 2 itemque. 
God created all things." But that, by the body and sub 
stance of the Word, Tertulliaii understood the very hypos 
tasis or Person of the Word, is most evident from his ex 
press words immediately preceding the passage which we 
have adduced, in his Treatise against Praxeas, at the conclu 
sion of chap. 7. f "For who," he says, "will deny that God 
is a body, although God be a Spirit? For Spirit is body of 
its own kind in its own form 3 . Nay, even the invisible things, 3 spiritus 
whatever they be, have with God both their own body and puTsui^" 

generis in 
sua effigie. 

d Sermo autem Spiritu structus est, substantiam Spiritum inscribimus. 
et, ut ita dixerim, Sermonis corpus est p. 36. [p. 19.] 

Spiritus. Sermo ergo et in Patre sem- f Quis enim negabit Deum corpus 

per, sicut dicit, Ego in Patre ; et apud esse, etsi Deus Spiritus est ? Spiritus 
Deum semper, sicut scriptum est, Et enim corpus sui generis in sua effigie. 
Sermo erat apud Deum. [p. 504.] Sed et invisibilia ilia, quaecumque 

e [Et] nos [etiam] Sermoni atque sunt, habent apud Deum et suum cor- 
Rationi, itemque Virtuti, per quae om- pus et suam fonnam, per quae soli Deo 
nia rnolitum Deum ediximus, propriam visibilia sunt. Quanta magis quod ex 

534 The Hypostasis or Body of the Word eternal; called 

ON THE their own form, by means of which they are visible unto God 
C NiTY E o R F alone. How much rather, then, shall That which was sent 
THE SON - forth from His own substance, not be without substance ? 
Whatever therefore the substance of the Word was, THAT 
I CALL A PERSON, and claim for It the name of Son ; and 
while I acknowledge the Son, I maintain Him to be second 
1 secun- in relation to 1 the Father." Here by body Tertullian under- 
s sdidani stan ds a substance, abiding 2 and subsisting of itself, so as 
to differ most widely from those accidents, which are fieet- 
ing and pass away by a continual flux and succession; as 
Petavius himself has rightly observed. Thus in chap. 35. 
of his book against Hermogenes, Tertullian allows not that 
there is any thing incorporeal 11 , "seeing that the very sub 
stance of each thing is its body." From these passages, 
then, you may know for certain, in what sense Tertullian 
above called the Reason of God, which was always with 
God, as being eternally born from the Divine Mind, the 
substance of the Word. That is to say, by the substance 
of the Word Tertullian certainly meant (according to his 
[662] own interpretation of his own meaning) the hypostasis or 
Person of the Word. So that that is most plainly false 
which Petavius confidently affirms, namely, that Tertullian 
was of opinion, that God the Father " then put forth out 
of Himself, and, as it were, embodied the Word, that is 
to say, gave unto Him a substance and Person of His own, 
at the time when He framed all created things out of no 
thing, and employed the Word for that purpose." I wonder 
what spectacles the Jesuit used in reading Tertullian : cer 
tainly Tertullian expressly teaches the very contrary, viz., 
that the body, substance, and very hypostasis of the Word 
was the eternal Reason of God, the eternal Spirit of God ; to 
3 aliquan- which at a definite time 8 the appellation of the Word was 
added ; that is to say, at the time when the Divine Hypos 
tasis Itself with vocal utterance went forth from God to 
create the universe. 

14. However, as in the passage quoted from the treatise 

ipsius substantia missum est, sine sub- Patre defendo. [p. 504.] 

stantia non erit? Quaecumque ergo h Cum ipsa substantia corpus sit rei 

substantia Sermonis fuit, ILLAM DICO cujusque. fp 246 ] 

PERSONAM, et illi nomen Filii vindico ; De Trinitate i. 5. 3. 

et dum Filium agnosco, secundum a 

by Tertullian the Spirit ; distinct ideas of the Names. 535 

against Praxeas, chap. 8, Tertullian asserts that that Spirit BOOK in. 
of God, which is the body and hypostasis of the Word, ex- "3^14 . 
isted eternally with God : so he in another place most dis- TERTUL- 
tinctly teaches that the Spirit of God Himself is an hypostasis LIAN - 
distinct from God, whose Spirit He is; and that, in that He 
is the Spirit of God ; the passage occurs in the 26th chap, of 
the treatise, where he intimates that the one and the same 
Person of the Son may be regarded in a twofold point of 
view; so far forth as He is the Spirit of God, or [in other 
words] a Divine Person having His origin from everlasting 
from God, who is a Spirit also and subsisting in God ; and 
so far forth as He is the Word : he also expressly says that 
the Word is nothing else than the operation of that Spirit ; 
and that the Spirit Himself is the substance and hypostasis 
of the Word. For, in explaining that place in Luke, chap, i., 
where mention is made of the Spirit of God coming upon the 
most Blessed Virgin (after Justin j and some other ancient 
authors), he thus writes of the Son of God k : " The Spirit of 
God, in this place, will be the same Word. For, just as 
when St. John says, The Word was made flesh/ we under 
stand the Spirit also in the mention of the Word ; so like- [663] 
wise here we acknowledge the Word also under the name 
of Spirit. For both the Spirit is the substance of the Word, 
and the Word is the operation of the Spirit, and the Two are 
One 1 ." Here when he says that the Spirit is the substance 1 unum. 
of the Word, and that the Word is the operation of the 
Spirit, and that the Two are One, the meaning is plain from 
what has been said before, that the Word is nothing else than 
that eternal Spirit of God, so far forth as It is regarded as 
proceeding from 2 God with sound and .vocal utterance to ex. 
create the primal light, and the other works of the universe; 
that is, that the selfsame Person is understood under the 
appellation both of the Spirit and of the Word, with this 
difference only, that He is called the Spirit of God, so far 
forth as He is a divine Person, eternally subsisting in God, 
[who is] a Spirit, and of Him; and the Word, so far forth 
as He is the Spirit in operation 3 , that is, so far forth as He 3 operans. 

J [Apol. i. c. 33. p. 64.] Sennonem quoque agnosciinus in 110- 

k Hie Spiritus Dei idem erit Sermo. mine Spiritus. Nam et Spiritus sub- 

Sicut enim, Joanne dicente, Sermo caro stantia est Sermonis, et Sermo operatic 

factus est, Spiritum quoque intelligi- Spiritus, et duo unum sunt. [p. 515.] 

mus in mentions Sermonis ; ita et hie 

536 Spirit, or Substance of the Word a Person eternally distinct. 

THE came forth (for so Tertullian thought) with sound and vocal 
utterance from God, when He willed, to set in order this 
entire universe. But that the Word of God, so far forth 
as He is the Spirit of God, is a Person distinct from God, 
whose Spirit He is, he expressly affirms in the same passage, 
shortly after the words we have cited ] ; "As therefore," he 

1 ipse. says, " the Word of God is not He ! whose [Word] He is, so 

also the Spirit, although He is called God, yet is not He 
whose [Spirit] He is said to be. Nothing which is another s 
is that same thing whose it is. Clearly, when any thing is of 

2 ex ipso. another 2 , and so is its [property], seeing it is of it, it may be 

3 tale quid such as 3 it is, of which it is, and whose it is. And, therefore, 
quale the Spirit of God is God, and the Word of God is God, be 
cause He is of God, yet [is] not He of whom He is. But if He 
be God of God, as a substantive thing, He will not be God 
Himself; but thus far God, because He is of the substance of 
God Himself, whereby also He is a substantive thing, and as 
it were a portion of the whole." Here, I repeat, Tertullian 
clearly teaches that the Spirit of God is a substantive thing, 

[664] that is to say, TO vfyio-rdpevov [that which subsists] ; and 

4 tal j s moreover, that the Spirit of God, whilst He is such as 4 God 
^244 ^ e Bather is, whose Spirit He is, (i.e. is of the same substance 

with Him,) is yet distinct in Person from the Father. But 
there is a distinction to be observed in these words, " As there 
fore the Word of God is not He whose He is, so also the 
Spirit, ... is not," &c., for this is just the same as if Tertullian 

5 alius a had said, He who is called the Son of God is another than 5 

God the Father, not only in that He is the Word, but also in 
that He is the Spirit of God, such as He was before He be 
came the Word, and so from eternity. But in what sense 
Tertullian called the Son of God, the Spirit and the Word, 
" a portion of the whole," namely, of the divine essence, we 
have explained above in the second book, chap. vii. 5 [p. 
199.] But let the reader, as he desires to understand clearly 

1 Sicut ergo Sermo Dei non est ipse, Deus, et Sermo Dei Deus, quia ex 

cujus est, ita nee Spiritus, et si Deus Deo, non tamen ipse ex quo est. Quod 

dictus est, non tamen ipse est, cujus si Deus Dei tanquam substantiva res, 

est dictus. Nulla res alicujus, ipsa est non erit ipse Deus; sed hactenus 

cujus est. Plane cum quid ex ipso est, Deus, quia ex ipsius Dei substantia, 

et sic ejus est dum ex ipso sit, potest qua et substantiva res est, et ut portio 

tale quid esse, quale et ipse ex quo est, aliqua totius. [p. 515.] 
et cujus est. Et ideo Spiritus Dei 

Tertullian 1 s language, not his meaning, like Valentinus 9 . 537 

the true mind and view of this obscure teacher, carefully bear BOOK "* 
in mind what Tertullian has said of the twofold mode of con- 14/15. 
sidering the Son of God, namely, as He is the Spirit and TERTUL- 
Reason of God, and as He is the Word of God. For from LIAN 
the careful observation of this distinction he will easily per 
ceive the meaning of very many expressions of Tertullian, 
which otherwise would certainly be a great difficulty 1 to him. ! crucem. 

15. To say the truth, Tertullian has in this place to a 
certain extent spoken the language of the Valentinians, and 
of the rest of the Gnostic herd ; and yet in very deed he quite 
agreed in opinion with the catholics. Let not the reader take 
this on my authority, but on that of Tertullian himself, 
who, in the 8th chapter of his treatise against Praxeas, 
both repudiates the wild notions of the Valentinians re 
specting the Word, and asserts the orthodox doctrine in the 
following express terms 111 ; " If any man from this shall think 
that I am introducing some probole 2 , i. e. a putting forth 2 irpo&o^v 
of one thing out of another, as Valentinus does, bringing ah( * uam - 
forth ason from seon, one after another ; this is what I shall 
first say ; The truth does not refrain from the use of that 
word, and the reality and meaning of it 3 , because heresy also 3 censu 
uses it : nay, heresy n has rather borrowed it from the truth, ejus 
to frame it into her own counterfeit. Was the Word of \- 
God put forth 4 , or not ? On this ground take your stand 4 prolatus. 
with me. If He was put forth, recognise the putting forth 

m Hoc si qui putaverit me Trpoj3o\V Filius Patrem novit, et sinum Patris 

aliquam introducere, id est, prolatio- ipse exposuit, et omnia apud Patrem 

nem rei alterius ex altera, quod facit audivit et vidit, et qme rnandatus est 

Valentinus, alium atque alium ^Eonem a Patre, ea et loquitur. Nee suam, 

de JEone producens ; primo quidem sed Patris perfecit voluntatem, quam 

dicam tibi, Non ideo non utitur et ve- de proximo, imo de initio noverat. 

ritas vocabulo isto, et re ac censu ejus, Quis enim scit quse sint in Deo, nisi 

quia et haeresis utitur; imo haeresis Spiritus qui in ipso est? Sermo autem 

potius ex veritate accepit, quod ad Spiritu structus est, et, ut ita dixerim, 

mendacium suum strueret. Prolatus Sermonis corpus est Spiritus. Sermo 

est Sermo Dei, an non ? hie mecum ergo et in Patre semper, sicut dicit, 

gradum fige. Si prolatus est, cognosce Ego in Patre ; et apud Deum semper, 

probolam veritatis; et viderit haeresis, sicut scriptum est, Et Sermo erat apud 

si quid de veritate imitata est. Jam Deum : et nunquam separatus a Patre, 

nunc quaeritur, quis quomodo utatur aut alius a Patre, quia, Ego et Pater 

aliqua re, et vocabulo ejus. Valentinus unum sumus. [p. 504.] 

probolas suas discernit et separat ab n [Quia et heresis utitur: imo bae- 

auctore. et ita longe ab eo ponit, ut resis potius ex veritate accepit, &c. 

JEon Patrem nesciat; denique deside- The words utitur; imo liceresis are 

rat nosse, nee potest ; imo et pene de- omitted in the editions of 1664 and 

voratur et dissolvitur in reliquam sub- 1G75.] 
stantiam. Apud nos autem solus 

538 Tertullian s expressions on the putting forth of the Word, 

ON THE of [taught by] the truth ; and let heresy look to it whether 
CO-ETER- g | ie ^ atn C0 pj ec [ ail y thing from the truth. The question 


THE SON, now is, in what sense each uses a given thing and the 
word which expresses it? Valentinus divides and sepa 
rates his probola from their author, and places them so 
far from Him, that the aeon does not know the Father; he 
even longs to know Him and cannot ; nay, he is almost swal- 

1 reliquam lowed up and dissolved into the rest of matter ! . But with 
tiam. us the Sou alone knows the Father, and has Himself $et 

2 sinum. forth the bosom 2 of the Father, and has heard and seen all 

things with the Father, and what He hath had in charge 
from the Father, that also doth He speak. And it is not 
His own, but the Father s will which He hath accomplished, 

3 de prox- which He has known immediately 3 , yea from the beginning. 

For who knoweth what things are in God, save the Spirit 
which is in Him ? But the Word was formed by the Spirit, 
and, if I may so say, the Spirit is the body of the Word. The 
Word, therefore, is both always in the Father, as he says, I 
am in the Father; and always with God, as it is written, 
And the Word was with God : ; and never separated from 

4 alius. the Father, or another than 4 the Father, since I and the 

Father are one/ ;; The wary man had perceived that what 
he had argued above respecting the vocal putting forth of 
the Logos, was not the common opinion of Catholics; in 
deed, as has been said, he almost confessed this very thing 
himself in the same passage. He had foreseen that there 
would be some who would reject this discussion of his as 
heterodox, and not far different from the Valentinian fables ; 
and accordingly he adopts this defence. And truly one egg 
scarcely looks more like another, than that saying of Ter- 

5 sermo- tullian, " God was not possessed of Word 5 from the begiri- 
fuit? 1 ning," resembles the wild fancy of Valentinus, when he 

asserts, that Sige, or Silence, was in the beginning with 
[666] God ; but that afterwards the Logos, as it were, burst forth, 
the sound and voice of God. Whence Irenaeus , who was 
(as Tertullian himself allows) a most careful searcher out of 
all doctrines, utterly rejects as a mere fable of Valentinus, 
[the statement] that the putting forth of the Word of God is 
similar to the putting forth of a human word by means of the 

Lib. ii. 48. [cap. 28. 5. p. 157.] 

seem like Valentinus ; the distinctive views of Valentinus. 539 

tongue. Yet doubtless the Valentinian error respecting the BOOK nr - 
putting forth of the Word of God by means of voice and 15, 16. 
sound, had such an appearance of truth, (favoured as it seem- TERTUL- 
ed to be both by the primary meaning of the appellation LIAN * 
the Word, given in the Scriptures to the Son of God, and 
especially by the passage in Genesis i. 3,) that it is not very 
wonderful that some readily conceded this to the Valenti- 
nians, and even embraced it themselves; who, at the same 
time, would not so readily have allowed themselves to be 
led away by them from the beaten path of catholic tradi 
tion in respect to the substance of the doctrine touching 
the Son of God. I decidedly consider Tertullian to have 
been of this number. 

16. For certainly in the passage cited he openly professes, 
that, as regards the chief point of the matter, he utterly ab 
horred the heretical inventions of Valentinus. In order to 
shew this, he sets forth the view of the Valentinians, and 
opposes to it his own. The Valentinians separated most of 
their aeons, and specially the Word, and set them at a great 
distance from the supreme Father of all, in nature, in know 
ledge, and lastly in time. First, in nature : for of all the 
seons that were generated by Depth and Silence, they made 
Mind (Niis) alone a perfect aeon. For (according to Irenseus, 
i. 1, near the beginning) they asserted that Silence, having 
conceived and become pregnant, brought forth Mind? "simi 
lar and equal to Him who had put Him forth, and alone 
containing the greatness of His Father." But as regards 
the Logos or Word, whom they made later than Mind, and 245 
[made Him] as Irenaeus expresses it, the third order of [667] 
generation, they expressly affirmed that He was an im 
perfect aeon, nay, even that He was blind. For this is also 
attested by Irena3us, ii. 24 q , "Going," he says, "round and 
round the Truth, away from right reason, so far as to affirm, 
that He who was produced as the Word from the Mind of 
their First Father was produced unto degradation 1 : for that i in demi- 
the perfect Mind begotten of the perfect Depth could not 


P [rairniv ((H7V) vvoSf^afjievriv rb i A recta ratione circumeuntes circa 
<nrep/j.a TOVTO, Kal eyKv^ova y^vo^vriv, veritatem, in tantum uti eum qui est a 
OTro/cuTjcrcu Nouf,] ojj.oiov re /ecu iaov T< Nu propatoris ipsorum emissus Sermo, 
Trpo&a\6i>Ti, Kal JJLOVOV x^poui/To rb /ue- in deminorationem eum emissuin di- 
yfQos TOV TlarpSs. [p. 5.] cant. Nun enim perfectum, a perfecto 

540 Valentinus doctrines ; Tertullian opposes them 




g n to make the emanation 1 which cometh of it perfect, 
b u t blinded in respect of the knowledge and greatness of 
THE SON. the Father ; and that the Saviour shewed a symbol of this 
emissio- mystery in the case of him who was blind from his birth." 
And afterwards in the same passage, " How is it, ye most 
vain sophists, that the Mind of the Father, nay, even the 
Father Himself, seeing that He is Mind, and perfect in 
all respects, sent forth His Word an imperfect and blind 
aeon, seeing He is able immediately to send forth with Him 
the knowledge also of the Father?" In the second place, the 
Valentinians asserted, as a natural consequence, that most 
of their aeons were far removed in knowledge also from the 
supreme Parent of all. For their doctrine was, that each 
aeon knew only his own immediate parent, and in conse 
quence that Mind alone, as being His only immediate off 
spring, could attain to a knowledge of the Parent of all. For 
thus Irenaeus speaks in the chapter which we have quoted r ; 
" They say that they (the aeons) were produced, and that each 
one of them knew him only who produced him ; and knew 
not him who is before that one." And what these heretics 
taught respecting the ignorance of the Word, specially, we 
have already shewn. In the third place; the Valentinians, 
lastly, separated almost all their aeons in age also from the 
supreme God. For they taught that the first pair alone, 
namely, [that] of Depth and Silence, is eternal. Following 
herein their fathers, the Nicolaitans and Cerinthians, as we 
have already shewn s out of Irenaeus, they attributed a be 
ginning to Mind itself, or the Only-Begotten, whom they 
called the Father of the Word. Now Tertullian, with Irenaeus 
and all Catholics, rejects all these doctrines as heretical, and 
shews under each separate head, that his own doctrine re 
specting the putting forth of the Word is directly contrary to 
the inventions of the Valentinians. We, he says, maintain, 


Bytho progeneratum, jam non potuisse 
earn, quae ex eo est, emissionem facere 
perfectam, sed obccecatam circa agni- 
tionem et magnitudinem Patris; et 
Salvatprem symbolum mysterii hujus 
ostendisse in eo qui a nativitate ccecus 
fuit. . . . Quemadmodum, o vanissimi 
sophistae, Nus Patris, imo etiam ipse 
Pater, cum sit Nus et perfectus in om 
nibus, imperfectum et caecum /Eonem 

emisit suum Logon, cum possit statim 
et agnitionem Patris cum eo emittere ? 
[cap. 17. 0. p. 139.] 

r Dicunt quoniam emissi sunt unus- 
quisque illorum, [./Eonum,] et ilium 
tantum cognovisse, qui se emisit, ig- 
norans autem eum qui ante ilium est. 

8 [See above, iii. 1. 8. p. 382.] 

all; and therein contravenes the Arian view. 541 

1, that the Word or Son of God is in nature and substance BOOK m. 
not other than the Father, but one with Him ; 2, with respect "g^? 
to knowledge, that the Son is in the bosom of the Father, TERTUL- 
and therefore that He alone knows the Father immediately V, "AN. 
and has laid open His bosom 2 ; 3, lastly, as to age, that that j m o. prox ~ 
Word in His own hypostasis always was in being with God the 2 s i num 
Father, seeing that the body, substance, and hypostasis 3 itself e J" s ex P" 
of the Word is that Spirit of God, who eternally subsists in 3 su b s tan- 
God and of Him ; who at a definite time came forth from tia et ty" 


God with the word, " FIAT," to form created things, and that 
on this account He was called the Word of God. For the 
Valentinians taught, that the Word was so put forth in vocal 
utterance and sound, as that, previous to that putting forth, 
He did not exist at all /car viroo-racnv (as a Person,) even if 
He ever were at any time a Person. Tertullian, on the con 
trary, teaches that the Word has His own body, or [in 
other words] substance and hypostasis, and that eternal; 
namely, that Spirit of God, who is and always has been 
in God. But who does not of himself perceive that these 
propositions of Tertullian are opposed, as so many counter- 
statements, to the blasphemies alike of Arius and of Valen- 
tinus ? That is to say, these three statements, that the Word 
or Son of God is alien from the nature and substance of the 
Father ; that therefore He cannot perfectly know the Father ; 
and, lastly, that He was not always in being and subsisting 
with the Father ; these, I say, are the primary heads of the 
Arian heresy; and all these Tertullian, together with the [669] 
catholic Church, has here expressly condemned in the Valen 
tinians. Let the frantic Arians, therefore, desist in future 
from glorying in Tertullian as their patron. 

17. To the testimonies which have been adduced, and they 
are certainly most clear, we will further add two besides ; 
with which we will at last bring to an end this lengthy but 
very necessary disquisition on the faith and views of Tertul 
lian. One occurs in the 27th chapter of the same treatise 
against Praxeas *. " For the rest," he says, " we must needs 
believe God to be unchangeable and incapable of form 4 , as 4 immuta- 
being eternal. But transformation is a destruction of that M em est 


* Caeterum Deum immutabilem et aeternum. Transfiguratio autem in- 
informabilem credi necesse est, ut teremptio est pristini. Omne enim 

542 The Word declared by Tert. to be absolutely eternal and 

ON THE which previously existed; for whatsoever is transformed into 
CO-ETER- somet hing else ceases to be that which it had been, and 

T N HEsoN. begins to be what it was not. But God neither ceases to be 
[what He is], nor can He be any thing else [than He is]. 
But the Word is God." Here Tertullian expressly teaches 
that the Word of God, in that He is God, is absolutely un 
changeable and eternal, who neither ceased to be what He 
had been, nor ever began to be what He was not. But 

1 praroga- surely if the Son of God, from the prerogative * (to use a 

phrase of Tertullian s) of His unchangeableness and eternity, 
in that He is God, never could have begun to be what He 
was not, much less could He have begun to be simply, when 
previously He existed not at all. Besides, if any one en 
deavour to elude the force of this testimony by asserting 
that the eternity here meant is of such a kind as that the 
thing, though it has a beginning, yet has not an end of exist 
ence, he may be easily refuted from the following consi 
deration. Tertullian is expressly speaking of such an eter 
nity as is a necessary attribute of the Divine Nature, as 
such ; [in other words,] that which must necessarily be attri 
buted to God, as God ; and this eternity he ascribes to the 
Word, because He is God. "We must needs believe," he 
says, "that God is unchangeable, as being eternal. But 
[670] the Word is God." Now the eternity of God is an eternity 

2 omni- in every sense of the word 2 and absolute, such as Tertullian 
246 describes in his treatise against Hermogenes, chap. iv. u : 

3 census. " For what other estimate 3 is there of God," he asks, " than 

eternity ? what other condition of eternity, than ever to have 
been, and [ever] henceforward to be, by the special privi 
lege of [having] no beginning and no end ?" Lastly, Ter- 
tullian s argument in the passage quoted is most manifestly 
grounded on this general supposition, that all the essential at 
tributes of the Godhead, all which belong to God the Father, 
as God, and do not in any wise indicate the relation of the 

4 et vice Father to the Son, and of the Son to the Father 4 , are common 


quodcumque transfiguratur in aliud, 4. p. 211.] 

desinit esse quod fuerat, et incipit esse u Quis enim alius Dei census, quam 

quod non erat. Deus autem neque aeternitas ? quis alius aeternitatis status, 

desinit esse, neque aliud potest esse. quam semper fuisse et futurum esse, 

Sermo autem Deus. [See the whole ex praerogativa nullius initii et nullius 

passage quoted above, book ii. ch. 8. finis. 

unchangeable ; this shews the true sense of his other words. 543 

to the Father and the Son. Now all admit that to have BOOK m. 
existed always and always ] henceforward to exist, is an ab- *J j^g. 
solutely necessary attribute of the Divine essence, considered TERTUL- 
in itself. But, eternal God ! how diametrically opposed LIAN - 
again,, is all this, to the Arian doctrines, with which Tertul- 
lian is by some said to have agreed ! For the rest, we learn 
for certain from this passage also, that, when Tertullian 
said, that the eternal Reason of God, the eternal Wisdom, 
and the eternal Spirit, began to be agitated 2 in God for the 2 agitari. 
works of the world, (just as he said that God the Father also 
exerted Himself with might 3 and laboured in the work of 3 viribus 
creation,) that He went forth from God with vocal utterance 
and sound, and the like; it is, I say, plain from this passage, 
that all these statements were made by him in a sense no 
ways inconsistent with 4 the eternal unchangeableness of the 4 minime. 
Divine Person whom he designated by those names ; that is to 
say, so as that it is in nowise to be supposed that the Reason, 
Wisdom, and Spirit of God either ceased to be what It had 
been, or begun to be what It had not been, or either lost or 
acquired any thing of what I may call Its internal perfection. 
In the beginning of the world there accrued indeed to the 
Divine Person of the Son of God, according to Tertullian, the 
appellation of the Word ; moreover, He was then declared to 
be the Son of God ; and there likewise accrued to God the 
Father the title of Creator. The Son wrought externally, [671] 
that things which were not might begin to be; and with the 
Son and through Him the Father also wrought. But nothing 
intrinsic was either added to or taken from either of the two, 
seeing that Each is the same God eternal and unchangeable. 

18. The other testimony is to be found in the books 5 of 5 carmi- 
Verses against Marcion. These books, in the judgment of num 
Pamelius x , are most certainly the work of Tertullian; nor 
have I seen any thing that is of any weight brought by 
others in opposition to this opinion of Pamelius. Read his 
Argument to the first book. Indeed any person of critical 
powers, who is not quite a stranger to Tertullian s other 

x Preface to Tertullian s Works, vol. these Poems are altogether unworthy 

iv. [See, however, p. 296, edit. 1664, of Tertullian, and could not have prc- 

where arguments such as can hardly ceeded from him. B.] 
be overthrown are given to prove that 

544 Verses against Mar don ; Light from Light. 

ON THE writings, will be able easily of himself to discover every where 
CO-ETER- - p oems ^ b th the thoughts and expressions of Ter- 


THE SON, tullian. Thus then the author of the Verses speaks respecting 
the Son of God, in Book v. chap. ix. y at the very outset, 

" He is God, He is also true man, and spoke the truth ; 
From the Father the Beginning ; begotten Light from Light ; 
The Spirit and the Word, the power under the Image of the Father, 
With the Father He ever was, united in glory and in age." 

Here, as in his treatise against Praxeas, he expressly says, 
that the Spirit and Word (whether we say Verbum or Sermo) 
of God always existed with the Father; adding, that He was 
united to the Father both in glory and in age. This testimony, 
however, which has been also quoted by a writer of our own, 
Dr. Gardiner 2 , Sandius a , in what he calls his "Letter in 
Epistola reply 1 " to him, thus attempts to escape from. " These verses," 
ne savs > "appear to have been written after the council of Nice, 
because the author a little before had said begotten Light 
[672] from Light/ But did this sophist wish to persuade us that 
no one before the Nicene fathers had said that the Son was 
begotten from the Father, as Light from Light ? Why there is 
scarcely any one of the ancient catholic writers who preceded 
the Council of Nice, in whose works this illustration does 
not occur, as is clear from what we have brought forward in 
the second, and this third book ; and of this Sandius could 
not have been ignorant. But with Tertullian especially this 
form of expression is familiar. To omit other passages, he 
thus speaks in his Apology, chapter xxi. b , " We also attri 
bute the Spirit, as His proper substance, to the Word, 
and Reason, and Power likewise, whereby God, as we have 
stated, made all things." He presently adds in the same 
passage, " Thus is Spirit from Spirit, and God from God, as 

y Hie Deus, hie et homo verus, verumque locutus, 
De Patre principium, genitum de lumine lumen, 
Spiritus et Verbum, Patris sub imagine virtus, 
Cum Patre semper erat, unitus gloria et sevo. 

p. 639. edit. Pamel. [638.] 

z [Dr. Samuel Gardiner, in a work itemque Virtu ti, per quae omnia moli- 

entitled, Cathoiicae circa SS. Trim- turn Deum ediximus, propriam sub- 

tatem fidei delineatio, p. 93. Lond. stantiam, Spiritum inscribimus. . . . 

1677.] Ita de Spiritu Spiritus, et de Deo Deus, 

a Append, ad Nucl. Hist. Eccles., p. ut lumen de lumine accensum. [p. 

100. 19>] 

b Nos etiam Sermoni atque Rationi, 

The same views in these Verses and in Tertullian. 545 

Light kindled from Light." Surely from the comparison even BOOK m. 
of these passages yon may easily discover that the same man *$*L 20. 
was the author of the Apology and of the Poems. In the TERTUL- 
Apology the Son of God is called both God and the Word 1 , LIAN - 
(whether Sermo or Verbum,) and Light, and Power 2 , and sjyeTer- 
Spirit; and all the same names (which you would not easily bum - 
find in any other author thus heaped together on the same 2 Virtus - 
Person of the Son) come together in that passage of the Poem. 
In the Apology you read " Light kindled from Light ;" in 
the Poem, " Light begotten from Light." 

Thus at last, we have, as I hope, laid open fully, and, so far 
as the author s obscurity permitted, clearly, the opinions of 
Tertullian respecting the eternity of the Son. From all which 247 
it is clear how rashly, as usual, Petavius has pronounced , 
" So far as relates to the eternity of the Word, it is plain that 
Tertullian did not at all acknowledge it." To myself indeed, 
and, as I suppose, to my reader also, after so many most clear 
testimonies adduced by me, the very opposite is evident ; un 
less indeed (which I do not believe) Petavius played on the [6731 
expression, the Word. For Tertullian does indeed teach 
that the Son of God was made, and was called the Word, 
(Verbum or Sermo,) from some definite beginning; i. e. at 
the time when He went out from God the Father, with the 
voice, " Let there be light," in order to arrange the universe. 
But yet that he believed that that very hypostasis, which is 
called the Word (Sermo or Verbum) and Son of God, is eter 
nal, I have, I think, abundantly demonstrated. 

20. Lactantius alone remains to be consulted on this ques- LACTAN- 
tion. Since his opinion is of no great account, (as we have T1 
already remarked in our Proposition and else where d ,) we shall 
need to say less about him. He was a rhetorician, not a 
theologian, and never at any time had a place amongst the 
doctors of the Church. Moreover, if we may give an opinion 
from his writings, as they have come down to us at this 
distance of time 3 , he was very little acquainted with the Holy 3 ad nos 
Scriptures and the doctrine of the Church. In consequence Se r t g ne ~ 
he fell into the most serious and absurd errors, not only on 
this question, but also on other primary heads of our re 
ligion, such as would scarcely be excusable in a catechumen ; 

c De Trin. i. 5. 4. d [See book ii. ch. 14. 4. p. 363.] 


N n 

546 The writings of Lactantius corrupted by heretics ; 

ON THE which it would be tedious to enumerate here. No wonder, 
C NITT OF" therefore, if he very wrongly understood that figurative 1 ge- 
THE SON, neration of the Son, whereby He proceeded from and was, as 

1 metapho- ft we re, born of the Father, for the creation of the universe, 

(about which he had read something in the Christian writers,) 
to be His true production and procreation. Besides, I think 
it must be said, either that those passages of Lactantius re 
specting the generation of the Son in Book ii. chap. 9, and 
Book iv. chap. 8, which, with good reason, have been espe 
cially blamed by Petavius and other learned men as absurd 
and impious, were corrupted by heretics ; or, at any rate, that 
Lactantius himself was misled by some heretic. Certainly, 
[674] as regards the latter passage, Xystus Betuleius, in his notes 
on the chapter, at the end, expressed his suspicions that 
Lactantius had fallen into the hands of some falsifier. At 
any rate this is certain, that there are now extant in that 
chapter some statements which are utterly at variance with 
the doctrine of the chapter next following, and also with 
those statements which we have elsewhere alleged out of 
Lactantius, as we shall shew afterwards. But in Book ii. 

2 Deus chap. 9, good heavens 2 , how inconsistent is what Lactantius 

has written, if indeed it were Lactantius who wrote it. In 
the edition of Betuleius d , in that of Geneva and others, the 
following words occur near the beginning of the chapter : 
genuit. "As the mother in an unexampled manner produced 3 her 
Maker; so must we believe that the Father, after an in- 

4 genuisse. effable manner, produced 4 one co-eternal [with Himself]. 
Of His Mother was born one who was already in being ; of 
His Father, one who once was not. Let faith believe this ; 
let not understanding search into it ; lest either not finding 
it she deem it to be incredible, or discovering it believe 

6 singulare. it not to be unparalleled 5 ." Here Betuleius informs us that 
in the Roman edition, which had been published seventy 
years f before he wrote, and which he says was very accu- 

d [Basil. 1563. The passage occurs, ne aut non inventum putet incredibile, 

in brackets, with a marginal note, at aut repertum non credat singulare. 

P- 108.] [This passage is not in the text of the 

e Sicut mater sine exemplo genuit edition of Le Brun and Dufresnoy, 

auctorem suum ; sic ineffabiliter Pater Paris, 1748, hut is given in a note at 

genuisse credendus est coaeternum. p. 143, with a statement of the grounds 

De matre natus est, qui jam ante fuit ; for rejecting it.] 

de Patre, qui aliquando non fuit. Hoc f That is to say, in the year 1475. 

fides credat, intelligent non requirat; [In the Roman editions of 1465 and 

wild opinions often expressed in his works. 547 

rately edited 1 , instead of aliquando non fuit (once was not) BOOK m. 
the reading is, aliquando non defuit (once was not wanting). "0^21 
But let any one who can, reconcile this with what follows. LACTAN- 
In some MSS., indeed, that whole passage is wanting. But TIUS - 
elsewhere also Lactantius plays, as it were, with this mystery, caTte^edi- 
in a way not unlike this; namely, in book iv. chap. 13, tam - 
where there is no suspicion of interpolation : "For God the 
Father Himself," he says, " who is both the origin and prin 
ciple of [all] things, in that He is without parents, is most 
truly called by Trismegistus without Father (aTrdrcop,) and 
without Mother (dfjLijrcDp,) because He is procreated 2 of none. 2 p rocre a- 
Therefore, it behoved that the Son also be born twice, that He tus> 
also might come to be without Father, and without Mother. 
For in His first nativity, the spiritual, He was without Mother, 
because He was generated of God the Father alone, without 
the office of a mother. "Whilst in the second nativity, the 
carnal, He was without Father, inasmuch as He was procreated [675] 
of the Virgin s womb, without the office of a Father." 

21. There follows in that ninth chapter of the second 
book a long discussion on two principles, the one that of 
good, the other that of evil, which manifestly savours of 
Manichseism. For he says there 11 , that God in the begin 
ning made [a] good and [an] evil [being] ; that " He framed 
the world so that it should be made up of things which 
are contrary to one another and discordant ; and that, there 
fore, before all things, He made two fountains of things 
adverse one to another and at war together; that is to say, 
two Spirits, a good and a bad, of which the one is, as it 
were, the right hand 3 of God, the other, as it were, His 3 dexter. 
left 4 ; that He constituted the Devil as the inventor of evil 4 sinister. 

1468, the words are aliquando non fuit, tris officio virginali utero procreatus 

in those of 1470 and 1474, aliquando est. [vol. i. pp. 302, 3.] 
non defuit. No edition of 1475 is k [Deum in principio fecisse bonum 

known.] et malum ; Fabricaturus mundum, qui 

Ipse enim Pater Deus, et origo et constaret in (vel ex) rebus inter se con- 

principium rerum, quoniam parentibus trariis et discordibus; . . . constituit 

caret, airdrop atque a/iajTcop a Trisme- ante diversa fecitque ante omnia duos 

gisto verissime nominatur, quod ex fontes rerum sibi adversantium, inter 

nullo sit procreatus. Idcirco etiam seque pugnantium, illos videlicet duos 

Filium bis nasci oportuit, ut et ipse Spiritus, rectum atque pravum, quo- 

fieret aTrdrup atque a^rcap. In prima rum alter est Deo tanquam dextera, 

enim nativitate spiritali d^TJTcop fuit, alter tanquam sinistra ; . . . constituit 

quia sine officio matris a solo Deo Pa- [Diabolum] malorum inventorem, 

tre generatus est. In secunda vero quern cum faceret, dedit illi ad mala 

carnali airdrup fuit, quoniam sine Pa- excogitanda ingenium et astutiam, ut 

N 11 2 


Manichean doctrines found in the works 




2 Produxit. 

3 indoles 



things, and that, when He made him, He gave him wit and 
subtlety,- to contrive what is evil, that so there should be 
in him both an evil will and consummate wickedness ; that 
He willed that from him there should arise what are con 
trary to His own virtues, and that he should contend with 
Him, whether He Himself should cause more good, or he 
[the other] more evil; lastly, He of His own accord as 
signed to the Devil a power over His own good 1 ." All this, 
I say, if it contain not the very dogma of Manes, still mani 
festly savours of Manicheism. Sure I am, that the author, 
whoever he was, did not learn this from any doctor of the 
Catholic Church, (for the Catholic Church has ever con 
demned blasphemies of this kind,) but took it from heretics. 
And, I ask, from what heretics if not from the Manichean ? 
Indeed these words also are wanting in some MSS. ; but in 
all the copies there are found in this place statements which 
are not so very far removed from Manicheism, but are as far 
removed as can be from the doctrine of the Catholic Church. 
For after the author had said that he would lay open .the 
cause and origin of evil, there follow these words, (accord 
ing to all the MSS.) " Seeing that God was most full of 
foresight to contrive and of skill to execute, before He en 
tered upon the work of [creating] the world, forasmuch as 
in Him there was, even as there ever is, a fountain of full and 
perfect good, in order that good might spring up from it as a 
stream, and flow forth afar, He produced 2 a Spirit like unto 
Himself, who should be endued with the powers of God the 
Father .... Then He made another, in whom the in-born 3 
characteristics of his divine original did not continue. And 
thus was he infected with his own envy as with poison, and 

in eo esset et voluntas prava, et per- 
fecta nequitia ; et ab eo contraria vir- 
tutibus suis voluisse oriri, eumque se- 
cum contendere, utrum ne ipse plus 
bonorum daret, an ille plus malorum ; 
denique bonorum suorum potestatem 
illi ultro assignavit. [These passages 
are not received into the text of the 
edition of 1748. B. but are given in 
the note, p. 144, with the grounds for 
rejecting them.] 

1 Cum esset Deus ad excogitandum 
providentissimus, ad faciendum soler- 
tissimus, antequam ordiretur hoc opus 

mundi, quoniam pleni et consummati 
boui fons in ipso erat, sicut est semper, 
ut ab eo bonum tanquam rivus orire- 
tur, longeque proflueret, produxit simi- 
lem sui Spiritum, qui esset virtutibus 
Dei Patris prasditus. . . . Deinde fecit 
alterum, in quo indoles divinse stirpis 
non permansit. Itaque suapte invidia 
tanquam veneno infectus est, et ex 
bono ad malum transcendit, suoque 
arbitrio, quod a Deo illi liberum datum 
fuerat, contrarium sibi nomen adscivit. 
. . . Invidit enim illi antecessori suo, 
qui Deo Patri perseverando cum pro- 

of Lactantius as we have them. Variations of MSS. 549 

passed over from good to evil, and of his own will, which BOOK m, 
had been given him free by God, took unto himself the con- CI s A 9J x " 
trary name. For he envied that Being who was made before LACTAN _ 
him 1 , who by persevering was both approved of God the TIUS - 
Father, and dear to Him. Him therefore, who thus from 
being good made himself evil, the Greeks call Sid/3o\o9, 
we the accuser, (eliminator,) because those sins, unto which 
he himself tempts us, he reports unto God." Then, omit 
ting what we said is wanting in some MSS., these words are 
subjoined ; " God, therefore, when He began the creation of 
the world, appointed over the whole work that His first arid 
greatest Son," &c. Here he teaches, first, that the Son of 
God and that Spirit, who became evil presently after his crea 
tion, were both alike produced by God, before God began 
the work of [creating] the world; although he allows that 
the Son of God was prior to that evil spirit both in dignity 
and time. In the next place, he not obscurely intimates, 
that the great angel, who is called the devil 2 , is excepted from 2 Diabolus. 
the class of things created by the Son ; that is to say, that 
both, the Son of God and the devil, were produced by God 
alone, neither of them by the other or through the other; 
that the devil had in the Son of God, one made before him 3 , 3 anteces- 
indeed, but not his Creator. But which of the catholic sorem- 
doctors before his time taught thus ? Lastly, when, with the 
view of laying open the cause of good and evil, he says, that [677] 
God, most full of foresight to contrive and of skill to ex 
ecute, produced that first Spirit with this intent, that He 
should spring up like a stream from the fountain of good, and 
flow down afar, that is to say, to the creatures ; and then that 
God made the other spirit, who is called the devil ; he seems 
to me to intimate, that this other spirit was made by God 
with the very contrary intention, namely, that a river of evil 
also should flow forth from that spirit, as from a fountain, 
inasmuch as God knew that, although He had bestowed on 
him freedom of will, he yet would turn aside from good unto 
evil. Now what, I ask, is this but Manicheism, and that, so 

batus, turn etiarn carus est. Hunc ipse illicit, ad Deum deferat. Exorsus 

ergo ex bono per se malum effectum igitur Deus fabricam nmndi, ilium 

Graeci 8ta/3oAoz/ appellant, nos crimina- primum et maximum Filium prsefecit 

forem vocamus ; quod crimina, in quae operi universe, &c. [pp. 143 145.] 


Further instances of absurd opinions 


1 cerussa- 
tus et in- 

2 delk-ato 

3 bonorum 


to speak, ingrained, and of the deepest dye 1 ? However, even 
of those impious statements which we have said are wanting 
in some MSS., some are found in other places in Lactantius 
where there is no variation of the copies. Amongst them we 
read this ; " (God) k when intending to make man, before whom 
He was about to set virtue as his rule of life, in order that 
through it he might attain to immortality, made good and 
evil, in order that it might be possible for virtue to exist." 
Quite parallel to this are the statements which we have in 
his treatise, De Opificio Dei, chap. 20. 1 "For God willed 
not that man should arrive at that undying blessedness by a 
luxurious journey 2 . When, therefore, He was about to give 
virtue, He gave first an adversary to introduce into the 
minds of men desires and vices, to be the author of errors, 
and the contriver of all evils ; that, since God calls men to life, 
so he, on the contrary, might hurry and lead them to death." 
There is also the following found among them 111 ; " Seeing that 
the supreme God cannot be resisted, He hath of His own 
accord assigned unto him (the devil) power over His own 
good 3 ." The same thing is said in his Institutes book ii. 
chap. 15, at the very beginning, namely that God", "from 
the first had given the devil power over the earth." And a 
little after, in the same passage the accuser is called, " that 
most deceitful governor of the earth." 

22. But in the eighth chapter of the fourth book, how silly, 
how ridiculous, how impious, are the passages we read ! " The 
Holy Scriptures," he says, "teach that the Son of God is the 
Word of God, and that the other angels likewise are spirits 
(breath) of God. For a word is breath put forth with signi- 

k Facturus (Deus) hominem, cui 
virtutem ad vivendum proponeret, per 
quam immortalitatevn assequeretur, bo- 
num et malum fecit, ut posset esse vir 
tus. [Part of the passage rejected as 
spurious, vol. i. p. 144 ; see above, p. 
546, note e.] 

1 Noluit enim Deus hominem ad 
immortalem illam beatitudinem deli- 
cato itinere pervenire. Daturus ergo 
virtutem, dedit hostem prius, qui ani- 
mis horninum cupiditates et vitia im- 
mitteret, qui esset auctor errorum, ma- 
lorumque omnium machinator ; ut 
quoniam Deus homines ad vitam vo- 
cat, ille contra, ut rapiat et traducat 

ad mortem. [These words also are part 
of a passage which is rejected from the 
text of the edition of 1748 ; it is in the 
notes of chap. xix. vol. ii. p. 123.] 

m Quoniam Deo summo repugnari 
hon potest, bonorum suorum potesta- 
tem illi (Diabolo) ultro assignavit. 
[Rejected, vol. i. p. 145, note.] 

n Diabolus cui ab initio terras dede- 
rat potestatem, . . . dominator ille terrge 
fallacissimus. [vol. i. pp. 173, 174.] 

Sanctse literae docent, [in quibus 
cautum est] ilium Dei Filium Dei esse 
Sermonem, [sive etiam Rationem,] 
itemque caeteros angelos Dei spiritus 
esse. Nam sermo est spiritus cum 

found in the writings of Lactantius. 551 

ficant articulation. But yet since breath and word are put BOOK in. 
forth by different parts, breath proceeding from the nostrils "2^22! 
and word from the mouth, there is a great difference be- LACTAN- 
tween this Son of God and the other angels. For they TIUS - 
issued forth from God as silent breathings, inasmuch as they 
were created not to deliver the doctrine of God, but to 
minister. Whilst He, although He Himself be a Spirit, 
(Breath,) yet He came forth out of the mouth of God with 
vocal utterance and sound." Here, as is plain, he teaches that 
the nature of the Son and of the other angels is [one and] 
the same ; that is, that both He and they are Spirits of God, 
sent forth from the very substance of God, with this differ 
ence, that the one went forth from the mouth, the other 
from the nostrils of God ; the former with voice and sound, 
the latter in silence; and all this again savours of Mani- 
cheism. For the Manichees asserted that not only the 
angels but also the souls of men, at least of the good, ema 
nated from the substance of God, as Augustine testifies, Of 
Heresies, c. 46. But did any one of the catholic doctors prior 
to Lactantius entertain such a theory ? Surely no one. Nay, 
Lactantius might have learned more sound teaching from Ter- 
tullian himself, whom he had read. For thus he writes in his 
Treatise against Praxeas, chap. iii. "Albeit/ he says, "the 249 
divine Monarchia is administered by means of so many legions 
and hosts of angels, as it is written, thousand thousands stood 
beside Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand were before 
Him?/ yet did it not on that account cease to be [the rule] 
of one, so as no longer to be a monarchy, because it was ad 
ministered by means of so many thousand powers; how then 
is it that God should be thought to undergo division and dis 
severing in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost, who hold the [679] 

voce aliquid significante prolatus. Sed P Si [et] monarchia divina per tot 

tamen quoniam spiritus et sermo di- legiones et exercitus angelorum admi- 

versis partibus proferuntur, siquidem nistratur, sicut scriptum est, Millies 

spiritus naribus, ore sermo procedit, millia adsistebant ei, et millies centena 

magna inter hunc Dei Filium et cae- millia apparebant ei ; nee ideo unius 

teros angelos differentia est. Illi enirri esse desiit, ut desinat monarchia esse, 

ex Deo taciti spiritus exierunt, quia quia per tanta millia virtutum procu- 

non ad doctrinam Dei tradendam, sed ratur ; quale est ut Deus divisionem 

ad ministerium creabantur. Ille vero et dispersionem pati videatur in Filio 

cum sit et ipse Spiritus, tamen cum et in Spiritu Sancto, secundum et ter- 

voce ac sono ex Dei ore processit. tium sortitis locum, tarn consoitibus 

[vol. i. p. 189.] substantiae Patris, quas non patitur in 

552 Some traces of sounder doctrine in Lactantius ; 

ON THE second and third place, partaking so of the substance of the 
C NiTY T oF~ Father, when He does not undergo this in such a number of 
THE SON, angels,, and that too when they are so alien from the substance 
of the Father? ?" He teaches that the Son and the Holy Ghost 
1 consortes. indeed are partakers 1 of the substance of God the Father; 
but the angels, how great soever they be, are utterly alien 
from the divine substance. We must, therefore, as I said 
before, certainly conclude, either that those passages in the 
writings of Lactantius have been corrupted by some here 
tic, or that Lactantius was himself infected with heresy. If 
the former be your conclusion, the passages cannot fairly 
be attributed to Lactantius; if the latter, his testimony is 
with good reason to be rejected. 

23. At the same time we may discern some traces of sound 
and catholic doctrine respecting the eternity of the Son in 
Lactantius, in passages, where all the copies printed and MSS. 
agreeing, we have his own words ; as for instance, in book iv. 
chap. 9. For there at the very beginning of the chapter, 
having at the end of the preceding chapter quoted the text 
of St. John s Gospel, i. 1, 2, according (as is probable) to the 
Latin version in general use at that time, he goes on to write 
thus^; "But the Greek term Logos is better than our term 
Word (whether Verbum, or Sermo.) For Logos signifies both 
Word and Reason, because He is both the Voice and the 
Wisdom of God/ Here Lactantius evidently imitates the 
expressions and thoughts of Tertullian, to whose writings, 
as was clear, he was no stranger. Tertullian, as we have 
seen r , had before noted the double sense of Logos, which 
Lactantius here observes. Tertullian, on that passage of 
John where it is written, " In the beginning was the Logos, 
and the Logos was with God/ had said that the Greek word 
Logos is better rendered in Latin Ratio (Reason), than 
Sermo (Word) ; and Lactantius says the very same. Ter 
tullian acknowledges that the Logos, as He is the Reason of 

tot angelorum numero, et quidem tarn alienis agreeing with the plural under- 

alienorum a substantia Patris ? [(Al. stood in numero.] 

et quidem tarn a substantia alienis?} p. q Sed melius Graeci \6yov dicunt, 

quam DOS Verbum sive Sennonem ; 

p ["Et quidem tarn alienorum a \6yos enim et Sermonem significat et 

substantia," another reading is, " Et Rationem, quia ille est et Vox et Sa- 

quideni tarn a substantia alienis." B. pientia Dei. [vol. i. p. 291.] 

The meaning seems to be the same, r [See above, 5. p. 516.] 

strange statements about the eternity even of the Father. 553 

God, existed in the beginning, and so from everlasting, with BOOK in. 
God the Father. And who would not readily believe that ^23* 
Lactantius, in using the distinction, meant the same thing ? LACTAN _ 
The Son of God, he says, is both the Word of God, and the TIUS. 
Reason of God, both the Voice and the Wisdom of God ; and, [680] 
in the passage of John, it is better to say, that Reason and 
Wisdom was in the beginning, and was with God, than that 
Word and Voice was so. For his meaning is, that the Son was 
not the Voice and Word of God before He went forth with 
vocal utterance from the Father, to set in order the universe ; 
whereas He was the Reason and Wisdom of God eternally. 
All this, however, is clearly inconsistent with the statements 
made in the preceding chapter, whether their author be 
Lactantius himself or some other. For, if the Greek term 
Logos better express the name of the Son than the Latin 
Verbum or Sermo, inasmuch as Logos signifies both Word 
and Reason; if the Son of God be not merely the Word, but 
the Reason also of God, arid not only the Voice of God, but 
the Wisdom of God likewise ; moreover, if He ought rather 
to be defined the Reason and Wisdom of God, than His 
Voice or Word, (be it Sermo or Verbum;} then surely the 
whole of the preceding discussion falls to the ground, wherein 
the Son of God is described as the mere vocal 1 Spirit of Recalls. 
God, [who was] formed into a Person at the time when lie 
was put forth. Lastly, if the Son be the very Reason and 
Wisdom of God the Father, then is He eternal, (if at least, 
we are to say that God the Father Himself is eternal;) be 
cause God the Father never was without His Reason and 
Wisdom; (up to what point this argument is sound and valid, 
we have shewn above 8 ). But it was not without reason that I 
said ; " If at least [we are to say that] God the Father Him 
self is eternal;" seeing that Lactantius seems to have spoken 
in dangerous, if not impious, language of the eternity even of 
the Father Himself, in his Institutes, i. 7, where he teaches, 
that the beginning of the existence of God, the Parent of all, 
cannot indeed be comprehended by us; still that we must 
certainly lay it down that God Himself had a beginning. His 
words are these*; " Of whom (God the Father) neither can [6811 

8 Seech. 5. 5, 6 of this book. sestimari potest, nee magnitude per- 

1 Cujus, (Dei Patris,) nee virtus spici, nee principium comprehend!; 

554 Certain evidence that in the 4th century the Ante-Nicene 


the power be estimated, uor the greatness seen clearly, nor 
the beginning comprehended ; when the intent application 
and acuteness and memory of the human mind hath arrived 
unto Him, as if all paths were come to an end u and with 
drawn, it pauses, stands still, and fails; neither is there 
any thing beyond, unto which it can go forward. However, 
since it cannot be but that that which is must at some time 
have begun to be, it follows that since nothing was before Him, 
He Himself was procreated from Himself before all things." 
Who would expect any sound opinion at all respecting the 
eternity of the Son, from one who had written so foolishly on 
the eternity of God the Father Himself? It may more than 
suffice to have said thus much on the doctrine of Lactantius. 
24. Thus then have we at length investigated, not without 
diligent attention, the doctrine of the writers who preceded 
the Nicene council, on the co-eternity of the Son, and, further, 
(unless my judgment greatly misleads me) have abundantly 
demonstrated the several theses or propositions of this third 
book. From all this it is clear that that is most true which 
the learned Sisinnius declared of old concerning the doctors 
of the Church who flourished before the division in the 
Church, i.e., before the rise of the Arian controversy : as 
it is stated in Socrates x , (Eccl. Hist. v. 10.) " The ancients 
studiously avoided 1 attributing a beginning of existence to the 
^ on f God ; for they understood Him to be co-eternal with 
the Father." For we have adduced more than twenty catholic 
and approved doctors of the first three centuries, who all dis 
tinctly and openly acknowledged the co-eternity of the Son. 
Moreover, we have shewn that the contrary doctrine was 
condemned by the synod of bishops assembled at Rome in 
the case of Dionysius of Alexandria. Setting aside Lactan 
tius, (whose judgment on this question we have proved to be 
of no account,) the other Antenicene writers are six in all ; 
Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, Hippolytus, No- 

cum ad ilium mentis humanae intentio, 
et acumen, et memoria pervenerit, 
quasi consumptis (al. consummatis) et 
subductis omnibus viis, subsistit, hseret, 
deficit; nee est aliquid ulterius, quo 
progredi possit. Verum quia fieri non 
potest, quin id quod sit, aliquando esse 
cceperit, consequens est, utquando nihil 
ante ilium fuit, ipse ante omnia ex se- 

ipso sit procreatus. [vol. i. p. 32.] 

u Cousumptis [al. consummatis; 
finished or exhausted. ] 

r us ol Tra\atol opxV virdp^cas T$ 
v!$ rov 0eou Sowai airetyvyov Karet- 
\j)(f>ei(rav yap a.vr bv ffwd fiiov T< UarpL 
[Soc. H.E. v. 10. See the entire pas- 
sage quoted below in the Epilogus.] 

Fathers were allowed to have held the eternity of the Son. 555 
vatian, or the author of the treatise on the Trinity among the BOOK m. 


works of Tertullian, and Tertullian himself. Of these the five 23,*2*. 
former, although they regarded the going forth of the Son CONCLU~ 
from the Father to create the universe, as being in some sense SION> 
His generation, did yet themselves also carefully avoid attri 
buting to the Son of God a beginning of subsistence ; and all 
openly professed that the Word existed eternally with God 
the Father. Lastly, Tertullian fell away from the Church into 
heresy; and is on that account justly to be classed among 
heretics, rather than among the doctors of the Church. And 
yet even he, after much going about, and after various and 
utterly frivolous subtleties, settled down at last and acquiesced 
in what he called " the opinion of the mass } " that is to say, i vulgi. 
the catholic opinion ; and in opposition to the Valentinians, 
the precursors of Arius, expressly affirmed^, that the Word had 
alway been in being and subsisted with God the Father. With 
respect, however, to Sisinnius, (of whom Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. 
vii. 12 Z , testifies, that, besides a knowledge of the Holy 
Scriptures, " he possessed a manifold acquaintance with the 
investigations of those who had thought deeply both among [683] 
the heathen and in the church/*) he had, no doubt, seen and 
read many other monuments of the ancient doctors, of Quad- 
ratus, for instance, Aristides, Miltiades, Melito, &c., which at 
this day are lost. Now he, the same who was prepared by 
such manifold study of the ancients, confidently asserted 
against the Arians, what he was prepared also to prove, that 
those ancients agreed in teaching that the Son of God was 
co-eternal with His Father. Thus far on this subject : let us 
now, with the help of the eternal Word and Son of God, 
proceed to what remains. 

y To the testimonies of the Ante- ram, in toto Salvatore ovaiwrrQai id est, 

nicene Fathers, cited in defence of the unitum esse secundum suhstantiam. 

co-eteraity of the Son, add the fol- Bibl. Patr. Max. vol. ix. p. 705. Lugd. 

lowing quotation from Malchion s Dis- 1677. The Greek was first printed by 

putation against Paul of Samosata, Dr. Routh, Reliq. Sacr., vol. ii. p. 576, 

given by Leontius, against Nestorius (ed. i.) from a MS. in the Bodleian 

and Eutyches, Book iii., near the end : Library, thus ; ov -jrd\ai TOVTO f\eyov, 

"Did I not long ago say, that you do on ov SiSws ovaiwadai eV rw o\(? <rco- 

not allow that the Only-begotten Son, rrjpi rbv vtbv rbv /jLovoyevri, TOV Trpb 

who existed (from eternity) before all -jrdo-fjs /criVews inrdpxovTa.] 

creatures, was substantially [ovtrica- 7 - [ical ras fj-riyfjaeis TU>V leptav &l- 

<70at,] in the one entire Saviour?" Ao>j> aKpifi&s fin(nd.p.vov KOI TTO\V- 

GRABE. [The Latin words cited by p.a.6r)~\ TUV iVroprj^eVcoi/ vwb T&V irap 

Grabe are ; Nonne ante dicebam, quod "EAATjm Kal rrj e/c/cArjo-ta 

non concedas, Filium unigenitum, qui TUV. [p. 292.] 
est ex aeternitate ante omnem creatu- 








1. RESPECTING the subordination of the Son to the Father, 
His origin and principle, we have incidentally, and 

THE SON, when engaged on other points, spoken not a little in the 
preceding books ; it is, however, an argument not unworthy 

1 sectione. of a more careful discussion by itself in a separate book 1 ; 
especially as at the beginning of our work we put it forward 
as a distinct head of doctrine delivered in the Nicene Creed, 
and which we proposed to establish by testimonies out of the 
ancients. Respecting this subordination,, then, let the fol 
lowing be our first proposition : 



THAT decree of the council of Nice, in which it is laid 
down that the Son of God is God of God/ is confirmed by 
the voice of the catholic doctors, both those who wrote be 
fore, and those who wrote after, that council. For they all 
with one accord taught, that the divine nature and per- 

The Subordination clearly held by the Ante-Nicene Fathers. 557 


fections belong 1 to the Father and the Son, not collaterally BOOK 
or co-ordinately, but subordinately ; that is to say, that the ^ 2 . 
Son has indeed the same divine nature in common with the i C ompe-~ 
Father, but communicated by the Father ; in such sense, tere - 
that is, that the Father alone hath the divine nature from 
Himself 2 , in other words, from no other, but the Son from " a se. 
the Father; consequently that the Father is the fountain, 
origin, and principle, of the Divinity which is in the Son. 

2. To prove that part of our proposition which relates to 252 
the doctors who preceded the Nicene council, there is no 
need that we should spend much trouble ; forasmuch as it is 
already sufficiently established by most of the testimonies 
respecting the generation of the Son, which we have adduced 
from them in our second and third books. What shall be said 
to the fact, that 3 the very words themselves, Son, and Genera- 3 qu ia ? 
tion, which the same doctors use throughout, do on their very ( i uod - 
first notion 4 manifestly suggest the subordination of the Son tu. 
to the Father, who begets 5 Him. Certainly the common sen- 5 Patrem 
timent of these ancients is that which is expressed by Nova- temi 
tian, or the author of the Treatise on the Trinity among the 
works of Tertullian, in a passage which we have already cited 
more than once, from chap. 31 a , "Whatsoever He (the Son) 
is, He is not of Himself, because neither is He unborn, but 
He is of the Father, because He is begotten ; whether as He 
is the Word, or as He is Power, or as He is Wisdom, or as 
He is Light, or as He is the Son, and whatsoever of these 
He is, He is from no other source than from the Father, 
owing His origin to His Father." 

Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho 5 , expressly 
says that the Father is to the Son the cause of His being, 
aiiiov rov elvai. Hence it is usual with Justin and the 
other Antenicene writers, to call God the Father, by way of 
distinction 6 , sometimes God absolutely, sometimes the One Sm^m- 
God, sometimes the God and Father of all/ (as it is in the / "*r^ Q , 7 -, 
Scriptures 1 Cor. viii. 4 ; Ephesians iv. 6 ; John xvii. 3 ;) 
because, that is, the Father alone is God of Himself 7 , whilst ?aseDeus 
the Son is God of God 8 . For this cause, also, those writers, Deus de 
as often as they mention the Father and the Son together, Deo * 
generally apply the name of God to the Father, and desig- 

a [See above, iii. 8. 7. p. 480.] b p. 358. [ 129. p. 222.] 

558 The teaching of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 


1 pariter. 
- potero. 

3 statim. 


5 4v TOUT?? 

rfj ap X r>. 

nate the Second Person by the title either of Son of God, 
or Saviour, or Lord, or by some other similar appellation. 
On this subject Tertullian well says, in his treatise against 
Praxeas, chap. 13 b , " I shall follow the Apostle," these are his 
words, " so that if the Father and the Son are to be men 
tioned together 1 , 1 shall call the Father God, and name Jesus 
Christ Lord. But Christ [when mentioned] alone, I shall 
be able 2 to call God, as the same Apostle says, Of whom is 
Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever/ For a ray of 
the sun also, [spoken of] by itself, I should call sun ; but if 
I were speaking of the sun, of which it is a ray, I should not 
forthwith 3 call the ray also sun." 

3. However, as relates to the doctors who lived before the 
council of Nice, no person, as I said, can have a doubt, that 
they acknowledged the subordination of which we are speak 
ing. It remains for me to shew that the fathers who wrote 
after the council of Nice, and who were the most resolute 
defenders of the faith defined and laid down in it, delivered 
the same doctrine; that no one, that is, may think that we 
have taken the words of the Nicene Creed in a wrong 
sense. They then also fearlessly call the Father the begin 
ning (or principle*), cause, and author of the Sou, and they 
even call the Father Himself the One God. First, they call 
the Father the />%??, beginning, or principle, of the Son ; 
that is to say, in so far as that term signifies the principle 
from which, in what manner soever, any thing arises, whether 
in time or from eternity ; but not in so far as it denotes a 
beginning of existence, when a thing which before was not 
begins to exist. Athanasius, near the beginning of his fifth 
Oration against the Arians c , expounds the words of John, "In 
the beginning was the Word," as if the evangelist had writ 
ten, In the Father was the Son ; " for according to John," 
he says, "in this Beginning 5 was the Word, and the Word 

b Apostolum sequar, ut si pariter 
nominandi fuerint Pater et Filius, 
Deum Patrem appellem, et Jesum 
Christum Dominum nominem. So- 
lum autern Christum potero Deum 
dicere, sicut idem apostolus, Ex quibus 
Christus, qui est (inquit) Deus super 
omnia benedictus in cevum omne. Nam 
et radium solis seorsum solem vocabo ; 
solem autem nominans, cujus est ra 

dius, non statim et radium solem ap- 
pellaho. [p. 504; quoted above, book 
ii. ch. 7. 2. p. 195.] 

c Kara, yap r~bv iwavvyv, ei/ ravrr) 
T P fyxy 3\ v o \6yos, Kal 6 \6yos $v 
Trpbs rbj/ tov Qebs yap e<TTiv f] ap^r], 
Kal fireiSav e| avTrjs effri, 8id TOVTO Kal 
ebs ?iv 6 \6yos. [Oral. iv. 1. vol. i. 
p. 617.] 

i. The Father the ap^rj of the Son; in what sense. 559 

was with God. For God is the Beginning ; and, forasmuch as BOOK r 

the Word is of It, the Word also was God." The idea, how 

ever, of the term beginning, or principle, and how the Son 

has the Father as His apx^, (beginning or principle,) and 

how, on the other hand, He is at the same time without 

a beginning, is accurately explained by Gregory Nyssen, 

in his first book against Eunomius d ; "But," he says, "see 

ing that the term beginning 1 has many meanings, and in 

its [various] senses is applied to many different things, we 

assert that in some respects the appellation He who is with 

out beginning 2 / is not inapplicable even to the only-begotten 2 TOV amp- 

Son. For when, indeed, by the word without beginning 3 x v 

the notion of not having its subsistence from any cause 3 is 

implied, this we confess is the property of the Father alone. 

But when the enquiry is with respect to the other things 

which are signified by the term beginning/ seeing that 

there is conceived also a beginning of creation, and of time 

and of order; in these respects we attribute to the Only- 

begotten also to be above all beginning; so as to believe 

that He, through whom all things were made, is beyond all 

beginning of creation, and idea of time, and sequence of 

order, so that He, who is not without beginning, [i. e. not 

without cause,] in respect of His subsistence, is acknow 

ledged by us in all the other senses to be without begin- 

ning ; and that the Father indeed is both without beginning 2 53 

and unbegotten 4 , whereas the Son is, in the aforesaid sense, 4 [ or "in- 

without beginning, though not also unbegotten 5 ." In like generate."] 

manner, Gregory Nazianzen, in his thirty-fifth Oration, the generate." ] 

first of those entitled, "On the Son," explains in what 

sense 6 the Three Divine Persons are all alike without begin- quatenus. 

d a\\ eVeiS?? TtoXvffWos 6 TTJS apxris \6repov apx^s eTi/cu us imlp 

X6yos, Kal els TroAAa rats virovoiais <>e- /cnVews apxV> Ka ^ XP OVOV ewoiav, Kal 

po/mevos, %<JTIV eV ofs (pap^v Kal Tcp JJ.Q- T<x|ecos aKo^ovQiaf etvat Triarfveii/, rbv 

voysvel viy ^ aTr/ji(paii>eii> rV TOV & ov TO iravra eyeveTo fcare TOV T(j5 

o.vapX ov trpocrriyopiav. 6rav juei/ yap rb \6ycp TTJS viroffTacreus fj.r) avapxov, eV 

/x^ e alriov rivbs rfyv vn6ffTaffiv ex i " ro ^ s &^ois itaaiv ofjioXoyov/^fi/ov ex etj/ 

fK TTJS (puvris TOV avdpxov vorjrai, TOVTO rb foapxoV Kal rbv /j.ev Ilarepa /cat 

Ii6vov rov Uarpbs Ibiov 6^o\oyovp.ev. avapxov, Kal fofimfFOV T^V Se vibv 

6rav Se Kara ra \oiira ru>v firl rr/s &vapxv j"e" Kara rbv flpqfUrov rpotrov, 

apx^s arHJLaivoij.tvwv i] f^fraffis y, eTret- ov fj.rji Kal ayei>vr)Tov. Edit. Grets. p. 

5rj Kal itriffe&s nvos eTrti/oetTai apx^i, 118. [vol. ii. p. 382; aywrjToi is the 

al \p6vov, Kal Ta|ecos, KCLV TOVTOIS Kal reading of the edition of Paris, 1638, 

rpofffj.apTvpov/j.fv, rb wj/rj- hut the version is innascibilem.~] 

560 ii. The Father the Cause of the Son ; 

ON THE ning, and in what sense the Father alone is so, in the 
SUBORDI- f u ow j no , W ords e : " How then are they not alike with- 

NATION OF i o r\ T~ 

THE SON, out beginning \ since they are alike eternal * t Because 
^awdvap- they are from Him 3 , although not after Him. For that 
*" which is without beginning, is also eternal ; but that which 

* ffvvaioia. . . . 

3 tKttQev. is eternal, is not in all cases 4 without beginning, so long as 

- Toii/Tcos. it be referred to the Father as a beginning. They are 

" rep alriy. not, then, without beginning in respect of cause 5 ." And in 

the thirty-sixth Oration he says f ; "Father is the pecu 

liar designation of Him who is without beginning; but 

Son, of Him who was begotten without beginning." Lastly, 

[690] Cyril of Alexandria, at the opening of the first book of his 

Commentaries on John, teaches, that the Father is the be 

ginning of the Son g , "only so far as it is used for that out 

fi Kara u.6- of which OU6 IS 6 ." 

voyrfc 4g 4 Allied to the term beginning/ is the term airios or 
b \eyerai. . 

atria in Latin, causa. Justin Martyr, as we observed a 

little before, said that the Father is " the cause" of the Son ; 
and a similar mode of expression is used by catholic writers, 
who lived after the rise of the Arian controversy. For 
they also say, that one Person in the Trinity, that is, God 

7 causa. the Father, is the cause 7 ; and that two, namely, the Son 

8 causata. and the Holy Ghost, are caused 8 . Thus Constantine the 

Great, in his Oration to the sacred council, in Eusebius, 
says 11 , "The Father is the cause of the Son, but the Son 
<J amcmk is caused 9 ." So Athanasius (or some other writer, whoever 
he was, who at any rate was orthodox in this doctrine,) in 
the Second Questions, chap. 11 and 12, says 1 ; "The Son is 
not the cause, but caused." Basil, in his first book against 
Eunomius, writes thus k ; " But, in regard to the relation of 

e irSis ovv ov (rwdvapxa, et ffvva iSia ; X eil/ * K itaTpos. vol. iv. p. 12. j 
tin l/celfcp, el Kal u.^ /xer tKeivov. rb h curia ftei/ vlov 6 Tlar^p alriarbv 

fjikv yap &vap-)(ov, Kal a iSiov rb 5e Se 6 vios. p. 581. edit. Valesii. [c. 11. 

a iSiov ov irdvTus avapxov, ecas kv els p. 688.] 

o-p^v avatpepriTai rbf irarepa. OVK l o Sc vlbs OVK ecrrtv afnos, aAA* al- 

avapxa ovv T<$ airly. p. 562. [Orat. nar6s. [Op. Athanas., vol. ii. p. 339. 

xxix. 3. p. 525.] On these questions the Benedictine 

f IfSioi/ Se roG /j.ev avdp^ov, TraT-fjp editor remarks, " No one will suspect 

rov Se avdpxoas jfvvr]9VTos, vl6s. p. Athanasius of being the author of such 

590. [Orat. xxx. 19. p. 553.] trifling." B.] 

[cturds re &>v ei/ irarpl, Kal e^wv ev k ^/xe?s 8e Kara p.\v r^v rwv alriuv 

eavry rbv irarepa r^v avap^ov rrjs ol- Trpbs ra e avrwv a\tai.v, irporerdxQai 

Kflas (pixTfcas olovei TTCOS etp%^j/], Kara rov vtov rbv Trarepa (^a/j-fv. Basil. 

p6vov rb e| ov \4yerai, 5ia rb virdp- torn. i. p. 720. [ 20. vol. i. p. 232.] 

the Father distinguished as Cause, Uncaused. 561 


causes to the things which proceed from them, we affirm that BOOK 
the Father is placed in order 1 before the Son." And in the 
same book he says 1 ; "What else does the word Father sig- 
flify, than this, that He is the cause and beginning 2 of Him 
who was begotten of Him?" In like manner, Gregory Nazi- 

anzen, in his twenty-ninth Oration on Doctrine 3 , more than a & e Dog- 
once declares the Father to be the cause of the Son and of mate - 
the Holy Ghost m ; "For," he says, " He would be the begin 
ning 4 of small things [only,] and of things unworthy of Him, 4 
were He not the cause of the Godhead, which is contemplated 
in the Son and in the Spirit." And, afterwards, in the same 
passage, he adds 11 ; "There is one God, both the Son and 
the Spirit being referred to one cause ;" and a little after 
he says that God the Father is the " beginning 5 , as cause, and 5 
as fountain, and as eternal light ." Damascene also in his 
third book, on the Orthodox Faith, chap. 5, writes thus p : 
" We acknowledge a difference of the Persons 6 in their three 6 rS>v fao 
properties alone, of being uncaused, and what belongs to a *" 
Father; being caused, and what belongs to a Son; and of 
being caused and proceeding." Likewise, in his first book, 
on Images, not far from the beginning, he says q : "The 
Son is the (living, natural, and unvarying) image of the 
invisible God, bearing in Him the Father entire, having [692] 
His identity with Him in all respects, and differing from 
Him only in this, that He is caused ; for the Father is by 
nature a cause, and the Son caused." And amongst the Latins, 
Marius Victorinus, in his first book against Arius, has used 
just the same language, saying r ; " But the Father is greater, 
because He Himself has given all things unto Him, and is to 

1 rb Se Tlarrjp ri &AAo o"r)/j.aivi, T) rtca Kal irarpiKfj, Kal rfj alriarrj Kal 

ov%l rb, alria slvai KOI ap^Tl rov e | avrov vi iKrj, Kal rrj alriarrj Kal fttwopfvrfj eVt- 

yewnQevros. p. 724. [ 25. p. 236.] yivuaKOfj.ev. [vol. i. p. 210.] 

m /AiKpuvyap &.v efy Kal ava^iuv ap^ri, i [I do not know why the original 

,/ur) 6f6rriros &v atrios TTJS eV v!$ Kal Greek is not quoted here; it is as fol- 

7n>et^uaTt 6ewpov/j.evr)s. torn. i. p. 490. lows: EIKOW roivvv (^uxra, (j)v<riKr) Kal 

[Orat. xx. 60. p. 379.] cbrapaAAa/CTos) rov aopdrou&eov o vibs, 

" els /ULCV ebs, ets ei/ a inov Kal vlov 6\ov eV eaury <pepav r"6v irarfpa, Kara 

Kal 7rvev/j.aros ava^fpojji.ti wv. [Ibid.] iravra f~)(.(av rr\v irpbs avrbv ravr6ri}ra t 

... apx^s Se ws a inov, Kal &s 70777/5, p.6vtf Se Sta^e pcov rip alriaraj. atriov /net? 

Kal us a/8iou (puros. [Ibid.] Compare yap (pvcriKbv 6 Harrip, alnarbv Se 6 vlos. 

Orat. xxiv. p. 429. A. [Orat. xxxiv. Orat. i. 9, vol. i. p. 311. B. The 

10. p. 624.] and Orat. xxxvii. p. 601. words enclosed in parentheses are omit- 

B. [Orat, xxxi. 14. p. 565.] GRABE. ted by Bp. Bull, who gives the Latin 

p [rfy 5e] 8ia<popav riav vTroffrdfffuv only of this passage.] 
eV ftovats TCUS rpialv iSi^Trjcrt, 777 di/ot- r Sed major Pater; quod ipse dedit 


562 iii. In the same sense, the Latin fathers call 



2 in causae 
ipsius pro- 

3 auctoritas. 

4 [The Son 



the Son Himself the cause of His being, [and] of His being 
in tm s particular mode." Just before, the same Victorinus 
j ia( j sa ic^ that the Son, indeed, is " the principal cause of all 
things, but that the Father is a prior cause 1 / in that He is 
the cause of the Son. Hilary, in his eleventh book*, on the 
Trinity, calls the Father, "the cause of the nativity of the Son." 
And in the twelfth book u , speaking of the eternal generation 
of the Son, he says, " And being born of a cause, [although 
that cause be] perfect and unchangeable, it must needs be 
that He be born from the cause, in the property of the cause 
itself 2 ." Lastly, Augustine also speaks to the same effect in 
his book of Eighty- three Questions, Question xvi. x : "God," 
he says, " is the cause of all things that exist. Now, in that 
He is the cause of all things, He is the cause also of His own 
Wisdom ; and [yet] God never was without His own Wis 
dom; consequently He is the eternal cause of His own eter 
nal Wisdom, nor is He prior in time to His own Wisdom." 

5. Of the same signification is the word Author, which the 
Latin doctors also frequently attribute to God the Father in 
His relation to the Son. Hilary y, in his ninth book on the 
Trinity, thus writes, on the passage of John v. 19. " Since 
what He does by authority 3 of the Father s nature which is 
in Him, He performs through the Father doing it, who 
worketh hitherto on the Sabbath; the Son is out of 
blame for a work in which the authority of the Father s 
working is put forward. For can do nothing 4 / He referred 
not to want of power, but to authority." And in the same 
book he says z , "For since the unbegotten God is [in the 
relation of] author to the only-begotten God, unto the per- 

ipsi omnia, et causa est ipsi Filio ut 
sit, ut isto modo sit. [i. 13. Bibl. 
Patr. Galland., vol. viii. p. 156.] 

8 [Causa principalis et sibi et aliis 
causa est, potentia, et substautia. Causa 
existens. Praecausa autem pater, c. 3. 
Ibid., p. 153.] 

* [. . . nasci cum] causam nativitatis 
[ostendat]. [ 11. p. 1089.] 

u Et ex causa licet perfecta atque 
indemutabili nascens, necesse est ex 
causa in causae ipsius proprietate nas- 
catur. [ 8. p. 1116.] 

* Deus omnium quae sunt causa est. 
Quod autem omnium rerum causa est, 
ctiam Sapientiae suse causa est ; nee 

unquam Deus sine Sapientia sua. Igi- 
tur sempiternae Sapientiae suae causa 
est sempiterna ; nee tempore prior est, 
quam sua Sapientia [vol. vi. p. 4.] 

? Si paternae in se naturae auctori- 
tate quod gerit, gerente Patre agit, qui 
usque modo operatur in Sabbato ; ex- 
tra crimen operis est Filius, in quo 
paternae operationis praefertur aucto- 
ritas. Non enim ad infirmitatem re- 
tulit, non potest ; sed ad auctoritatem. 
[ix. 45. p. 1014.] 

z Cum enim innascibilis Deus ad 
perfectam divinae beatitudinis nativi- 
tatem unigenito Deo auctor sit, aucto- 
rem nativitatis esse, sacramentum pa- 

the Father, the Author of the Son. 563 

feet begetting of divine blessedness, to be the author of the BOOK iv. 
begetting is the mystery that belongs to the Father. How- 
ever, it is no derogation from Him, who, by a genuine be- 
getting, fully makes Himself to be the image of His author." 
Further, the same writer, in other places throughout his 
works, employs the word author ; for instance in the fourth 
book, expounding those words from the forty-fifth Psalm, 
" Wherefore God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee/ he 
says a , "Thy, is in reference to the author; TJiee, is to inti 
mate Him who is from the author. For He is God of God." 
Likewise in the seventh book he says b , "He is in such wise 
an image as that He differs not in kind, but suggests 1 an ] significet. 
author." So in his book on the Synods, in a passage 
which we have already quoted in another place, he says c , 
"He is subject to the Father, as to His author." Augus 
tine also, in his eleventh Sermon on the words of our Lord in 
St. Matthew d ,, observes with his usual acuteness* ; "In the 2 argute, 
Father is suggested to us authorship, in the Son nativity, in suo. 
the Holy Ghost the communion of the Father and the Son, 
in the Three equality." Of the same force are the words, 
root, fountain, head, which also the ancient Catholics attri 
bute to God the Father in His relation to the Son and to the 
Holy Ghost. Thus Basil in his twenty-seventh Homily, against 
the Sabellians, writes 6 , " For the Father indeed has His being 
perfect, and wanting in nothing, being the root and fountain 
of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." In like manner Am 
brose, in his tenth book on Luke f , says, "The Father is 
Lord, because He is the root of the Son " and in his fourth 
book on Faith, chap. 5s, he observes, "The Father is the [694] 
fountain of the Son ; the Father is the root of the Son." 

ternum est. Caeterum non habet con- ritas, in Filio nativitas, in Spiritu 

tumeliam, qui se auctoris sui esse Sancto Patris Filiique communitas, in 

imaginem genuina nativitate consum- tribus asqualitas. [Serm. Ixxi. 18. vol. 

mat. [Ibid., c. 31. p. 1003.] v. p. 392.] 

a Tuus relaturn est ad auctorem ; te e etrrt /xev yap 6 Uarrjp reAeioz/ exov 

vero ad ejus, qui ex auctore est, signi- rb e?i/at, /ecu avevdees, pia ital ir^y)] TOV 

ficationem. Est enim Deus ex Deo. vlov Kal TOV ayiov Trvtv/uLaros. torn. i. 

[iv. 35. p. 848.] p. 606. ed. 1618. [Horn. xxiv. 4. vol. 

b Ita imago est, ut non difFerat ge- ii. p, 193.] 

nere, sed significet auctorem. [vii. f Dominus Pater, quia radix est Fi- 

37. p. 941.] Hi. [x. 5. vol. i. p. 1505.] 

c Patri subjectus est, ut auctori. * . . . Fons Pater Filii est ; ... ra- 

[69. p. 1189.] dix Pater Filii est. [iv. 10. 126. vol. 

d Insinuatur nobis in Patre aucto- ii. p. 545.] 

o o 2 

564 iv. Hence the Father is called the One, and the Only God. 




1 caput. 

2 a Dei 

3 Deus ve- 



And Ruffinus, on the Creed, calls the Father the head 1 of 
the Son ; saying, " And, whilst He is the Head of all things, 
yet is the Father the Head 11 of Him." 

6. Lastly, the ancients did not shrink from calling God 
the Father the one and only God, as being the principle, 
cause, author, and fountain of the Son. For thus the Nicene 
fathers themselves commence their creed : " We believe in 
one God the Father Almighty," &c. and then subjoin, " Ahd 
in one Jesus Christ, .... God of God." And the great Atha- 
nasius, than whom no one better understood the mind and 
view of the Nicene synod, in his Oration against the Sabel- 
lians, not far from the beginning, allows that the Father is 
rightly designated 1 "the only God, because He alone is 
unbegotten, and alone is the fountain of Godhead." To 
his testimony, passing by others whom I might quote, I will 
only add that of Hilary, who in the third book of his work 
on the Trinity, setting forth the passage of the evangelist 
John, xvii. 3, where the Father is called " the only true God," 
writes as follows k : " Due honour is rendered by the Son 
to the Father, when He says, ( Thee, the only true God ; the 
Son however does not separate Himself from the truth of God 
head 2 , when He adds, And Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent/ 
The confession of the faithful puts no interval [between Them] , 
because in Both is the hope of life; nor is true God [head 3 ] 
wanting to Him, who, when They are put together, comes 
second in order 4 . When therefore it is said, That they may 
know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou 
hast sent/ under this meaning, that is, that of Sender and Sent, 
the truth and Godhead of the Father and of the Son, is not 

h Et cum ipse sit omnium caput, ip- 
sius tarn en caput est Pater. The Bene 
dictine editor of the works of Cyprian, 
to which this exposition of Ruffiuus is 
appended, p. cxcvii. reads " Ipsius ta- 
men auctor est Pater," ("yet the Father 
is the author of Him.") See p. cciv. 
B. The older editions gave the passage 
as above; the Bened. edition is accord 
ing to the MSS. and does not add the 
citation of 1 Cor. xi. " and the Head of 
Christ is God," which follows in -the 
older editions.] 

1 6n ptvos ayeWryros Kal n6vos irq-ft 
6e6T-riTos, [Sjo TOI/TO affKovTes avrbv 

fj.6voi/ s6v. vol. ii. p. 37.] 
k Debitus Patri a Filio honor red- 

ditur, cum dicit, Te solum verum Deum; 
non tamen se Filius a Dei veritate se- 
cernit, cum adjungil, Et quern misisti 
Jesum Christum. Non habet interval- 
lum confessio credentium, quia in 
utroque spes vitse est. Nee Deus ve- 
rus ab eo deficit, qui in conjunctione 
succedit. Cum ergo dicitur, ut cog- 
noscant te solum verum Deum, et quern 
misisti Jesum Christum, sub hac siguifi- 
catione, id est, mittentis et missi, non 
Patris et Filii veritas et divinitas sub 
aliqua aut significations aut dilationis, 
diversitate discernitur; sed ad gignen- 
tis et geniti confessionem fides religio- 
nis instruitur. [ 14. p. 815.] 

This doctrine of Origination denied by some moderns. 565 

distinguished under any difference of meaning or extent, but BOOK iv. 
the faith of [our] religion is instructed unto the confessing of c ^^j} 
the Begetter and the Begotten." And now to all these testi 
monies I will add this, by way of conclusion 1 ; that the doc- i C0 ronidis. 
trine that in the Trinity there is only one Beginning without 
Beginning 2 , even the Father, was so fixed, decreed and esta- 2 ^ e> cause, 
blished in the primitive Church, that in the forty-ninth of [ ! n " 
what are called the Apostolical canons, he is condemned who 
shall baptize into "three [Persons] without beginning," et? 
rpels avdp xovs. On which canon Zonaras has made this com 
ment 1 : "For the Church has received to worship One without 
beginning, even the Father, because of His being uncaused ; 
and One Sou, because of His ineffable generation ; and One 
Comforter, the Holy Ghost, by reason of His procession." 

7. But this proposition is especially worthy of attention 
on account of certain moderns, who obstinately contend that 
the Son may properly be called avrodeos, i. e. God of Him 
self 3 . This view is inconsistent both with the hypotheses of 3 a se i pso 
those who maintain it, and with catholic consent. They say, Deus 
I mean, that the Son is from God the Father, as He is Son, t 
and not as He is God ; that He received His Person, not 
His essence, or Divine Nature, from the Father. But this is 
self-contradictory; for, as Petavius m rightly says, "The Son 
of God cannot be begotten by the Father, unless He receive 
from Him His nature and Godhead." For what else is it to 
be begotten/ than to be sprung from another, so as to have a [696] 
like nature 4 ? he who is begotten must necessarily have [his] 4 in simiii- 
nature in such wise communicated by him [who begets,] ^"tune 1 
as in it to be like him who begets [him.] Unless indeed 5 5 [- n j s j vero 
Christ, in that He is the Son of God, is not God; or receives Christus... 
a relation only from the Father without [receiving] Godhead. Deus.] 
I add, that in this case Person cannot be conceived of without 
essence, unless you lay down Person in the Godhead to be 
nothing else than a mere mode of existence 6 , which is simple 6 r P 6wov 
Sabellianism. Hence in another place Petavius" justly pro- 
nounces the error of those who hold that the Son is of Him 
self God, to be " not only an error of a word, or of a mode of 

1 eVa yap &vapx ov % ^KK\i\ffltt <rej8efi/ Sta T^V KTr6pv<nv. [vol. i. p. 33. ed. 

irapeAa/36, TOV irarepa, Sta rb avairiov Oxon. 1672 ] 
Kal eVa vlbv, 8ta TT)V apb^Tov ytwiiffiv m De Trinit. iii. 3. 3. 

Kal tva. irapaKXi]TO^, 7b TT^fvp-arb ayiof, " De Trinit. vi. 11. 10. 


566 This is inconsistent with their own views, with Catholic 
ON THE expression, as Bellarmine thinks, but altogether one of reality, 

THE SON, entirely does away with and overthrows in the Trinity, that 
which in other ways it seems openly to profess, that the Son 
is begotten by the Father. For/ he says, " the mind cannot 
conceive of generation without [the idea of] the communi- 

1 alicujus cation of something 1 ; and, further, of no other thing than 
nature, essence, substance: forasmuch as it is a substym- 
fs, tial 2 production ; and in this respect generation differs from 

stantialis b " a ^ otner kinds of propagation, which take place in regard of 
quality and quantity, But if essence is communicated to 
the Son by generation, He plainly has His essence from the 
Father, not from Himself; otherwise either He would not be 
begotten, or He would not be begotten by another. Hence 
Damascene, on the Orthodox Faith, i. 10, rightly observes, 
" All things which the Son and the Spirit severally have, 
They have of the Father, even being itself ." 

[697] 8. And in what way this opinion of theirs is repugnant to 
catholic consent, I have shewn a little before. The council of 
Nice itself certainly decreed that the Son is God of God; He, 
however, who is God of God, cannot, without manifest con 
tradiction, be said to be God of Himself. But for what pur 
pose should I endeavour to bind by the authority of the coun 
cil of Nice those who seem not to consider the authority of 
that synod worth a straw ? For the champion, who stands in 
the first ranks of those who maintain this opinion, has not 
shrunk from calling the holy and venerable fathers of the 
Nicene council "fanatics," and to designate the formula of 
their Creed, " God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Yery 

3 parro\6- God," as harsh, and containing a manifest " vain repetition 3 ," 
and, further, as being rather a song fit to be set to music 
than a formula of confession of faith. I shudder as I repeat 

irdvra ovv offa ex ei & v &s, ical rb so even His very being." For thus is 
Tri/eujua, e /c rov Uarpbs exei, /cat avrb this sentence better rendered in the 
rb e?f/at. [Petavius, and after him edition of 1712. B. Bp. Bull and 
Bull, have scarcely weighed these Petavius followed the old Latin trans- 
words of Damascene sufficiently. For lation, " Omnia, quaecunque habet Fi- 
he is here specially treating of the lius et Spiritus Sanctus, a Patre habet, 
Holy Ghost, and, after marking the etiam ipsum esse ;" the version of Le 
distinction between generation and pro- Quien, ed. 1712;is, " Omnia igitur quae 
cession, he thus concludes, "All things, Filius habet, Spiritus etiam a Patre 
therefore, which the Son hath, the habet, atque adeo hoc ipsum quod 
Spirit also hath from the Father, and est."l 

consent, with the teaching of the first Reformers. 567 

these words, and therefore I earnestly exhort pious and studi 
ous youths to beware of a spirit from which such things have 
proceeded. We do indeed owe much to that man, for the good 
service which he rendered in purging the Church of Christ 
from the superstitions of popery ; God forbid, however, that 
we should regard him as our master, or bind ourselves to 
him, or hesitate, whenever occasion shall require it, freely to 
censure his plain errors and novel tenets, departing from ca 
tholic consent. Whosoever, how great soever in other respects 
he be, despises the authority of the ancient Catholic Church, 
so far forth he will obtain no trust nor authority with us P. 
That song, which this great man so much derided, was sung by [698] 
the sacred choir of about three hundred bishops, and presby 
ters and deacons without number, gathered together in the 
first and most august of oecumenical councils. The same strain 
was, with wonderful harmony, chanted by the catholic doc 
tors who lived before that council; as is manifest from the tes 
timonies which we have brought forward in our second and 
third books. In a word, that the Son of God is God of 
God, is the voice and song (if any there be) of the whole 
Catholic Church of Christ; in harmony with the voice of 
God Himself, in the sacred oracles, whiclt no one has dis 
turbed without awful danger to himself. 

9. I will add this one further observation from Petavius q , 
that this opinion is also manifestly opposed to the doctrine 
of the first reformers, that is to say, of Luther and Melanc- 
thon. For, " Luther, in his book on the Captivity of Babylon r , 
among many other erroneous decisions of a corrupt Church, 
enumerates that decree of the Lateran council, that The 
Divine Essence neither is begotten, nor begets." (Who then 
can doubt, that he would also have regarded as a palpable 
error, the opinion of those who openly deny that God is 
begotten of God, and teach that the Son is God, not of the 
Father 1 , but of Himself 2 ?) " Philip Melancthon, in his Expo- i a p atre> 
sition of the Nicene Creed, thinks that it is truly said that 2 a Seipso. 
the Essence, which is the Son, is begotten ; as it is said in 256 

P In like manner Saravia, in the 1 De Trinit. vi. 12. 1. 

Prologue of his Defence against Beza, r Tom. ii. Op. fol. 70. [The words 

[says] : " This I frankly say, who- quoted are in vain looked for at the 

soever takes away all authority from place here referred to, or indeed in any 

the fathers leaves none at all for him- part of the work. Bull follows Peta- 

self." GRABE. vius. B.] 

568 Difference of view among some earlier writers. 

THE the Creed, God of God, Light of light. Then to the argu 
ment which is alleged in opposition, that the same thing 
THE SON - does not beget itself; and that therefore, since the essence is 
the same, essence cannot beget essence he replies, that the 
same thing, so far forth as it is incommunicable, does not 
beget itself; but that the same, which is communicable, is 
[699] communicated to that which is begotten ; now essence is 
communicable, therefore it is communicated to that whith is 
begotten s . " At the same time, the self-complacency with 
which Petavius in this passage speaks of the conflict of the 
heretics, as he calls them, is extremely ridiculous ; as if, for 
sooth, there were no conflict among the theologians of the 
Church of Rome. Indeed on this very point there is a palpa- 

1 avri\oyta. ble contradiction in terms 1 between the Master of Sentences 

and Richard of St. Victor, (to say nothing of the Abbot 
Joachim,) the latter asserting, with Augustine and the rest 
of the fathers, that " substance begets substance, and wis 
dom wisdom ;" whilst the former contends on the other 
hand that "essence does not beget essence." For it is in 
vain that Petavius in that chapter attempts to reconcile 
these utterly opposite opinions. He himself allows that 
"nearly all the schoolmen and divines think that the Lateran 

2 praejudi- Council had passed judgment 2 against the doctrine of Victor, 

in favour of the tenet of the Master." The Jesuit, how 
ever, must pardon us, if we agree with nearly all the school 
men and divines rather than with one single person, Peta 
vius. I will go further, and say, that by the same subtleties 
by which Petavius endeavours to whitewash the view of the 
Master and of the Lateran Council, he might have excused 
the error of Calvin itself, against which he so vehemently 
inveighs ; as will be plain to any one who considers the 
matter closely. I wish, however, that at this point, out of 
reverence for this most august mystery, both sides alike would 
now at length abstain altogether from scholastic trifling, and 
that we might all, with holy simplicity of faith, embrace the 
doctrine of the Catholic Church, which lays down that the 
Son is " God of God, Very God of Very God." 

10. For the rest, the objection which one writer 

Fin this case also Petavius is not thon,asmaybeseen by referring to Enar. 
faithful in citing the words of Melanc- Symb. Nic., vo). i., Op. p, 398. B.j 

Meaning of avrbOeos applied to the Son by Origen. 569 
has advanced*, that Origen, in his third book 11 against BOOK iv^ 


Celsus, (a passage which we have already x quoted,) calls 9, jo. 
the Son avroo-cxfria, avToa\7]06ia, avToSiKaioavwri, (very Wis- [700] 
dom, very Truth, very Righteousness,) is of no weight what 
ever. For it is certain that in these words the prefix 1 avrb 3 prono- 
onlv means the veriest 2 trueness of the thing, not the cause . 

2 ipsissima. 

or origin ; so that Origen intended nothing more, than that 
the Son is the veriest*, that is, the most perfect Wisdom, 3 ipsissima. 
Truth, and Righteousness, such as the Father Himself is ; at 
the same time not denying, that the Son received all these 
perfections of the Divine Nature from another, that is to 
say, from His Father. For thus the same Origen in another 
passage designates Christ, not only as avrocro^la (very Wis 
dom), but also as avrovios (very Son), in his commentary on 
John, torn, xxxii.y, where it is manifest that He is called 
avrovibs, not as being Son of Himself, (for what could be 
more absurd than such an expression?) but as being the veri 
est 4 , that is, the true, genuine, and real 5 Son of God. In this 4 ipsissi- 
sense Athanasius, likewise, in a passage which we have also 

quoted above 2 , applies the same words to the Son of God; mis. 
and in this sense no Catholic would deny that the Son both 
may and ought to be called avroOebs, that is to say, true 
and veriest God. Hence, even Eusebius, who (if any one) 
acknowledged the subordination of the Son to the Father, as 
to His origin and principle, yet still did not hesitate to 
declare, that the Saviour a is " worshipped, and rightly wor 
shipped, as the genuine Son of the supreme God, and avro- 
0eo9 (very God)." Where by the word avroOebs, is clearly 
meant, not one who is God of Himself 6 , but one who is truly * a seipso 
God ; as may be gathered both from the fact that it is the Deus- 
Son of God, who is here called avroOebs, as well as from the 
fact that in the same breath the Father is designated the [701] 
supreme God 7 ; as also from the word avroOeos being mani- i T oD o- 
festly used as explanatory of the preceding expression, " the 
genuine Son;" and, lastly, from what follows in the same 

1 Chamier. Corp. Theolog. iii. 19. p. a olarov Kad6\ov 0eou7rcu5a yv-haiov 

106. Kal avrodebv npoffKvvtiffQai, Kal f\K6rcas. 

u [4. 1. p. 473-4. Oration spoken at the Consecration of 

* ii. 9. 6. [p. 224, note u.] the Crmrch of Tyre, inserted in the 

y p. 416 . edit. Huet. [ 18. p. 449. Eccles. Hist. x. 4. edit. Vales, p. 375. 

vol. iv.] [p. 468.] 
z [ii. ch. 9. 13. p. 2.53. note d.] 

570 Origen and Eusebius by avroOeos mean " truly God." 


1 per se. 


2 alienum 
a Patris 


3 oixriu 
Kara Tre 

Oration. For a little after, having spoken of the kingdom 
and supreme dominion of our Saviour, Eusebius says b , " For 
what was there that could stand against the will of the 
Word, [who is] universal King, and universal Ruler, and 
God Himself (avrov eoO) ?" the Son, that is, is called 
by Eusebius avrodebs, as being avros @eo?, truly God, 
or God Himself. Perhaps, however, it may be worth 
while, in passing, to quote the note of the distinguished 
Valesius on this passage ; "This place," he says, "ought 
especially to be observed, since in it Eusebius calls Christ 
avroOebs, that is to say, in Himself 1 and truly God. For, 
in my judgment, this single passage is sufficient to refute all 
the calumnies of those who have supposed that Eusebius 
was infected with the stain of Arian doctrine." The learn 
ed father, then, is abundantly cleared from the charge of 
Arianism by those very marked testimonies, which we 
quoted d from him above. But I return to Origen. He 
affirms in express terms that the Father alone can and 
ought to be called avroQeos, that is, of Himself God. .See 
his commentary on John, torn. ii. e , where he thus replies to 
those who, to avoid the appearance of denying one God, 
maintained, either that the Father and the Son were the 
same Person, or that the Son was different in essence from 
the Father 2 ; " For we must say to them, that God (6 eo?, 
with the article,) is then indeed avroOeos (i. e. of Himself 
God) ; wherefore also the Saviour, in His prayer to the 
Father, says, that they may know Thee, the only true God; 
and every thing except that which is avroOebs, is made God by 
a participation of His Godhead." At the same time in this 
very passage Origen explicitly condemns f " those who deny 
the divinity of the Son, and make His property and peculiar 
substance 3 to be different from that of the Father." Origen 4 , 
therefore, acknowledged that the Father and the Son are 

* A daman- 

ft yap Kal e/ueAAc TOV Tra/ujSacri- 
Aea>y, /cal Travyye^vos, Kal avrov &ov 
\6yov evo-TTjrrecrQai TO> yeuuaTt. p. 376. 
[p. 469.] 

: In notes on Eusebius, p. 191. 
d See above, iii. 9. 11. 
( e \fKTov yap auroTs, OTI r6re fifv 
avT6deos o eds CO-TV Si^Trep Kal 6 trco- 
TT]p <f>t)(riv eV rp Trpbs rbv TlaTepa 
Iva yiv<affK<a(Tl (re rbr/ n6v 

Qeov. trav 8e rb Trapa rb avrdOeos /ie- 
r XV r V s ^Kftvov Se^TTjTOS 6eoiroiovfj.e- 
vov. p. 47. edit. Huetii. [ 2. p. 50.] 

{ [Trapairiirrovras tyevSecri Kal d(re/3ecrt 
S6ynaffiv, %TOI . . . r)J apvov/ji.wovs rrjv 
de6rr)ra TOV vlov, TiQfvras Se aurov T^V 
Kal T}JI> ovffiav Kara irzpiypa- 


In what sense the Father is greater than the Son. 571 

of the same substance, arid, consequently, that the Son is BOOK iv. 
true God equally with the Father; this, I say, he acknow- . 
ledged in the same breath with which he pronounced that 
the Father alone could be called avroQeos-, so that it was 
without reason that Petavius carped at this view of Origen. 
Consult Huet, if you will, on this passage ; we must proceed 
to other subjects. 

CHAPTER II. [703] 


1. WE have, I think, shewn clearly enough, in the preced 
ing chapter, that the ancients agreed in acknowledging the 
subordination of the Son unto the Father as unto His origin [704] 
and principle ; now, with the view of shewing what the same 
writers taught in consequence of this, I propose to illustrate 
and confirm the following proposition. 


THE catholic doctors, both those who preceded, and those 
who lived after, the Council of Nice, with unanimous con 
sent determined that God the Father, even in respect of His 
Divinity, is greater than the Son; that is to say, not in 
nature indeed, or in any essential perfection, as being in 
the Father, and not in the Son; but in authorship alone, 
that is to say, in origin; forasmuch as the Son is from the 
Father, not the Father from the Son. 

In this proposition we assert two things ; first, that the 
ancients laid down that God the Father, even in respect of 
Godhead, is greater than the Son ; secondly, that they taught, 
nevertheless, that the Father is greater than the Son, only 

572 Justin M. taught that the Son is second 

ON THE as regards origin, but that in respect of nature Both are 

N S AT B ION D OP e( l ual - We wil1 shew tnat the ancients taught both these 
THE SON. doctrines with consentient voice, beginning with those fathers 

who wrote before the Arian controversy. 

JUSTIN 2. Of these Justin, who was well-nigh the earliest of them 
MARTYR. a j^ manifestly lays down a certain order, and, as it were, 
degrees of dignity, in the most Holy Trinity. For in the 
Apology, called in the ordinary editions the Seeond f , he 
says, that Christians "do with reason worship the Son of 
God, holding Him in the second place." And immediately 
after, he says again, " that the Christians rightly assign to 
Jesus Christ "the second place after the unchangeable and 
[705] ever-existing God and Parent of all." In the same Apo 
logy he also writes =; "Now after God the Father and Lord 
of all, the first power, and the Son, is the Word." Parallel 
to this is the passage in the same Apology 11 , in which he 
calls the Son " The Power next after the first God." Lastly, 
in his dialogue with Trypho 1 , he designates the Son as 
" God, who is the Minister of God the Maker of all things." 
Yet the same Justin elsewhere, namely in his epistle to 
Diognetus, distinctly denies that the Son of God is a Mihis- 

1 {m-npeT-nv. t ei>1 j calling Him Himself the Maker and Creator of all thirigs. 

You will find the remarkable passage quoted at length in 
book ii. 4. 7. [p. 146.] But how, you will ask, can these 
things be reconciled ? My answer is, easily. When the Son 
is said to be the next and second after the Father, and the 
Minister of the Father, the subordination of the Persons is 
expressed, so far forth as One has His origin from the Other, 
not any difference or inequality of nature in the Divine Per 
sons. The Father, as Father, is first in the most Holy 
Trinity, the Son is second after the Father. In all the 
divine operations the Son is the Minister of the Father, in 

2 a Deo that He works from 2 God the Father, (who is the fountain 


f [inbi/ avrov rov ovrcas &fov fj.aG6v- p. 51.] 

res, jccti] eV Sfvrepa X<apq sx ovrfs i 8 V $* irptarr) Svva/JLis pera rbv tra- 

[n-j/eDjua re 7rpo</>7jTiK&i/ eV rpirrj raei, re pa iravruv KOI 5ea"ir6TTjj/ ebv, Kal 

ort] fj.rra \6yov Tifj.w/j.v, [a7ro5eio j uei> > vibs, 6 \6yos eVnV. p. 74. [ 32. p. 

IvTavOa yap paviav rj/xwi/ /caro^aiVoj/- 63.] 

rat, ] Sevrepav x c *>P av /* 6T T^V arpfrr- h rrjv /uera rbv irp&TOV ebv Svvafjiiv. 

rov^Kal aei ovra&ebv Kal yfvvf]Toparu>v p. 93. [ 60. p. 79.] 

tov avdpdoTTca (rravpfaQtvTi. Sidovai ebi/ vTnjperrjv ovrarov iroir)rovrcai 

xtyovres. p. 60. [Apol. i. 13. 8\ew 0oD. p. 279. [ 57. p. 154.] 

to the Father in point of origin, not of nature. 573 

and origin, as of the [Divine] Essence, so also of all the Divine BOOK iv. 
operations,) and God the Father [works] through 1 Him; ^^Y 1 
not God the Father from Him, or He through the Father. J USTI N M. 
Accordingly, Clement of Alexandria, than whom no one en- l per ip- 
tertained more catholic views on this article [of the faith], sum> 
yet did not hesitate to write thus respecting the Son of 
God k : " Every operation of the Lord is to be referred to 259 
the Almighty, and the Son is, so to speak, a kind of opera 
tion of the Father." At the same time Justin, in most of [706] 
those places, where he calls the Son the Minister of the 
Father, has respect to that dispensation which the Son Him 
self voluntarily undertook, not for the first time from 
His incarnation, but from the very fall of man, to procure 
the salvation of mankind, as I shall shew hereafter. Yet 
does he with good reason deny that the Son is the Minis 
ter of God the Father, in respect of that same Divine Nature, 
which He has in common with the Father, though commu 
nicated from the Father ; that is, so far forth as He is not 
one of the creatures of God, which are said, in the proper 
sense of the words, to minister to and to serve the supreme 
God, but is very God equally with the Father. With good 
reason also does he designate the Son Himself equally as the 
Father, the Maker and Creator of all things ; so far forth as 
although it was from the Father that He received His 
Divine Nature and omnipotence, yet He created the uni 
verse by power and omnipotence not of another, but His 
own, that is, innate in Him 2 and natural [to Him]. Some sibiinsita. 
indeed of the ancients have even said, that the Father made 
this world by His Son, as by an instrument, but they meant, 
no doubt, as Grotius has somewhere well observed, not an 
extraneous, but a con-natural instrument. Hence Irenseus 
affirmed that the Son 1 was the Minister of the Father even 
in the very creation of the world; though he, if any one, 
acknowledged the equality of the Father and the Son con 
sidered in respect of nature, as I have already clearly shewn, 
and shall soon shew again still more clearly. The whole 
subject is fully and accurately embraced in a few words, by 

k iracra Se f) TOU Kvpiov evepyeia eirl yeia 6 vlds. Strom, vii. p. 703. [p. 
rl>v Tra.VTOKpd.Topa Trjv avatyopav ex ei > 833.] 
Kal tarriv, us etVeiv, Trar/x/fT) TIS eVe p- l [See above, p. 173.] 

574 The Son of the same absolute Divine Nature as the Father ; 

ON THE Justin himself, in another place, namely, in his Dialogue with 
N S AT B ioN D oF Tr yP n m ^ wn ere, on tliat passage of Genesis, The Lord 
THE SON, rained 1 fire from the Lord out of heaven/ he thus comments; 

1 see Gen. "The prophetic word intimates that there were Two in num- 
xix ^ 2 ^ n b er ; O ne being on earth, who says that He had come down 

to see the cry of Sodom ; the Other being in the heavens, who 
is the Lord even of the Lord on the earth, as being [His] 
Father and God n , and [as being] to Him the cause (of His 

2 So Bp. being, and) 2 of His being both mighty, and Lord, T and 
note below Go-cL" In this short sentence, I say, we have presented to 

us a key, wherewith to open the meaning of Justin in those 
passages in which he seems to speak less honourably of the 
Son of God. He teaches here, that God the Father is the 
God and Lord of His Son. But how ? Even so far forth as 
He is the fountain of Godhead, and the cause of being to the 
Son. But yet, in the same breath, he no less openly teaches 
that the Son is God, and Lord, equally as the Father ; in other 
words, that the Father gave unto the Son to be what Him 
self is, even [to be] God and Lord. The Son therefore is 

3 KO.T less than the Father as respects causation 3 , but the Son is 
airicof. ^ e q ua l to the Father as respects nature 4 . The Son is God 
GO,. and Lord equally as the Father, and in this alone does the 

Son differ from the Father, that He is God and Lord, from a 
Father [who is] God and Lord ; that is, although He be God 
of God, yet is He true God of true God, as the Council of Nice 
itself denned. And that this was the very mind of Justin (if in 
words so express there can any how appear to any one to be 
any thing obscure) we conclude yet more certainly from 
this, that, in the words immediately preceding, in describing 
the generation of the Son from the essence of the Father, he 
had said that the Son was begotten of the Father, not by 
division of the essence of the Father, but by simple commu 
nication, such as is between the fire which kindles and that 
[708] which is kindled. The kindled fire is just the same in 

m 8uo OVTO.S apiOfjiip fj.f)vveL 6 \6yos 6 n [Bp. Bull incorrectly puts a stop 

TTpo<pT\TiK.6s rbv yu,ei> e?ri yys ovra, 6s after slvai ; translate, " the cause to 

<J>77<n KarajSejSrj/ceVai t8e?j/ r^jv Kpavy^i/ Him of His being mighty and Lord 

uj/ r^tv Se fv TOIS ovpavois virdp- and God." B. The words inserted in 

fcs Kal rov eVt 7775 Kvpiov Kvpi6s parentheses in the text make the ver- 

&s Har^p Kal ei>s, ctfnos re sion adopted by Bp. Bull, and argued 

TOV eli/cti, Kal SI/J/OT^J, Kal Kvpicp, on by him.] 
&$. p. 358. [ 129. p. 222.] 

being inferior only in respect of causation. 575 

nature with that from which it is kindled, as Justin himself B o K 1V - 
elsewhere expressly reminds us, and differs from it in 2 , 3. 
nothing except that it is thus communicated. Thus, as is JusTIN M 
clear, the Son is true Divine Light equally as the Father ; and 
in no respect is He inferior to Him, except in that He is 
Light of Light, as again the Council of Nice decreed. And 
indeed, to suggest this once for all to my reader, whosoever 
acknowledges the Son to be of one substance 1 with the l t/j-oovato 
Father, (which, as I have shewn above, Justin and all the 
primitive fathers without exception did acknowledge,) he 
does thereby as a consequence necessarily confess that the 
Son is, as respects nature, equal to the Father. For how, I 
pray, can any one believe that the same Divine Nature is 
common to the Son with the Father, who supposes that the 
Son lacks any one essential property of the Divine Nature, 
and on that account is inferior to the Father ? Since Christ 
is the Son, and the true Son, of God, that is, begotten of the 
very essence of the Father, He must necessarily be equal to 
Him that begat Him, as respects nature; that is, in those 
things which belong 2 to the Father in that He is God. It is 2 compe- 
the very same which we observe in the propagation of all tunt " 
living creatures, and specially of men; for all men are as 
to their nature alike and equal, and differ only in acci 
dents ; and these are not incident to the Divine nature. 
Nay, further, no substance admits of more and less : but 
amongst things which admit not of more and less, there 
cannot possibly be any question about dissimilarity or greater 
or less perfection. But this by the way. From Justin I pass 
on to other fathers. 

3. Irenaeus, book ii. chap. 49 p , expressly pronounces the IREN^US. 
Father to be greater than the Son ; " The Lord," he says, 260 
"is the only true Teacher, so that we may learn through 
Him that the Father is over all things. For My Father/ [709] 
He says, f is greater than I/ I have, however, already <* 
shewn that the holy writer in that place referred especially 
to the human nature of Christ. But in book iii. chap. 8 r , he 
states that the Father commanded the Son to create the 

See above, ii. 4. 3, [p. 138.] i [See above, ii. 5. 8. p. 175.] 

P [c. 28, 8. p. 158, quoted above, r [ 3. p. 183, quoted above, p. 

p. 175.] 168.] 

576 Irenceus ; the Son less than the Father, yet equal to Him. 

world; and in book iv. chap. 17. 1 he says that the Son 
ATION OF " ministers to the Father in all things " words which mani- 
THE SON, festly imply a certain pre-eminence of the Father over the 
Son, even so far as He is most properly the Son of God. Yet 
the same Irenseus elsewhere (namely, in book iv. chap. 8. u ) 
says that "the immeasurable Father is measured in the Son, 
for the Son is the measure of the Father, since He also con- 
1 ca P Jt - tains 1 Him." In which passage, as we have already x abun 
dantly shewn, there is clearly declared equality, in respect of 
nature, between the Father and the Son. Consequently, ac 
cording to Irenseus, the self-same Son, who, with respect to 
His origin from the Father, and the economy which He 
undertook, is less than the Father, is equal to Him in regard 
of that Divine Nature, which He has in common with the 
Father; so, I mean, that He wholly contains and compre 
hends the immeasurable Father Himself, how great soever 
He be. Likewise in that remarkable passage, in book ii. 
chap. 43 y, where he institutes a comparison between the 
Word and created beings, he distinctly notes this principal 
difference, that no creature is equal to his Creator, that is, 
to God the Father; clearly intimating by this very state 
ment that the Word and Son of God is altogether equal to 
God the Father. The reader will find the passage of Irenseus 
quoted entire, book ii. 5, 5. [p. 167.] But why say so much ? 
Let any one who doubts on this matter read Irenseus ii. 24. z 
In that place the holy man is wholly engaged in shewing, 
against the Valentinians, that it cannot be maintained, with 
out extreme absurdity, nor without blasphemy, that the Word 
was put forth imperfect from the perfect Father. In the 
same place he sharply rebukes those same heretics, who, 
[710] though they laid down that their Mind [Nus] was a perfect 
aeon, and altogether equal to the Father of all, did yet be 
lieve that the Word, the offspring of Mind, was imperfect, 
and made lower, as the translation expresses it, in demino- 
ratione positum. Of the many statements in that chapter 
which bear on this point, we will here cite these few a : " For 

c. 7, 4. p. 236, quoted above, p. r [c. 25, 3. p. 153, quoted above, p. 

173.] 167.] 

c. 4. 2. p. 231, quoted, p. 164.] z [c. 17. 7. p. 139.] 

x See above, ii. 5. 4. [p. 166.] a Non enim ut compositum animal 

St. Irenaeus, and St. Clement of Alexandria. 577 

He who is the Father of all except Mind," he says, "is not, BOOK iv. 
as we have already shewn, as it were a kind of compounded ^2" 
animal, but Mind is the Father, and the Father is Mind. I RENJEI ,S. 
It necessarily follows, therefore, that He also who is from 
Him, the Word, nay rather that Mind itself, seeing It is 
the Word, be perfect and impassible/ And again he writes ; 
" It is not therefore [the case] as they teach, that the Word, 
as though holding the third [place in the] order of genera 
tion, was ignorant of the Father. For in the case of the gene 
ration of men, indeed, this will perhaps be thought some 
what probable l , in that they are often ignorant of their verisimi- 
parents ; but in the Word of the Father it is absolutely im- " 
possible/ Afterwards in the same passage he confidently 
pronounces that they are " blindly going round and round 
the Truth, away from right reason, so far as to affirm that 
the Word was produced unto degradation." It is therefore 
more than certain, that Irenseus held the equality between 
God the Father and His Word, or Son, as respects the 
nature of both. 

4. Clement of Alexandria, in a passage from his Strom., CLEM. 
book vii., which we have already quoted in book ii. 6. 6, [p. ALEX> 
187, 188,] is thought by some b to have taught that the Son 
of God is the next power after His Father. The same Cle 
ment, however, Psedag. i. 6, (and this passage also has been 
already quoted, [p. 184,]) calls the Son "The perfect Word, 
born 2 of the perfect Father;" that is, a Son not inferior to* natum. 
His Father, by whom He is begotten, in any kind of perfec 
tion. But he speaks yet more expressly, in a passage which 
also we have already quoted, from his Admonition to the 
Gentiles : " The divine Word, who truly is the most manifest 
God, made equal to the Lord of all ; because He was His 

quiddam est omnium Pater, pra&ter Patris omnimodo impossible est. . . . 

Nun, quemadmodum praeostendimus ; a recta ratione ccecutientes &c. [c. 17. 

sed Nus Pater, et Pater Nus. Necesse g. p. 139. See the last part of Jhe pas- 

est itaque et eum qui ex eo est Logos, sage quoted above at iii. 10. 16. p. 539, 

imo rnagis autem ipsum Nun, cum sit note q ; it is to be observed that where 

Logos, perfectum et impassibilem esse. the Bened. edition reads circumeuntes, 

. . Non igitur jam Logos, quasi tertium Bp. Bull had the old reading ccecuti- 

ordinem generations habens, ignora- entes in both places. Dr. Burton had 

vit Patrem, quemadmodum decent hi. altered it there but not here.] 

Hoc enim in hominum quidem gene- b [By Petavius ; see above, p. 188.] 

ratione fortasse putabitur verisimilius c [ii. p. 86, quoted above, ii. 6. 3. p. 

[al. verisimile.] esse, eo quod saspe ig- 184.] 
norant suos parentes ; in Logo autem 

2 Statin- 

3 diversa 

4 entis uni- 



578 The relation of Son to Father involves sameness of nature, 

Son, and [because] the Word was in God/ Observe ! the 
Word, or Son of God, whom in respect of origin He had in 
another place declared to be next unto, and second to, the 
Father, he here expressly pronounces to be made equal to the 
Father ; and that too on the ground that He is His Son, that 
is, begotten of Him, and of the self-same nature and essence 
with Him; and because the Word is in God, that is to say, 
subsists in the Divine Essence itself, in which is nothing im 
perfect. It is, however, to be especially observed, that Cle 
ment, in the same breath, as it were, in which he lays down 
that the Son is equal to the Father, yet recognises a certain 
pre-eminence and prerogative of the Father over 1 the Son, in 
that he calls the Father the Lord of all. We are to under- 
stand that God the Father is called by way of distinction 2 the 
Lord of all, because He is the cause and origin, not only of 
all creatures, but also (although in a different way 3 ) even of 
Rig gon Himself; of the latter, that is, He is the cause by 
eternal generation out of His own essence itself; of the former, 
by a production out of nothing, which took place in time. 
Saving, therefore, this prerogative of the Father, that He is the 
Father and origin of all that is, (rov 6Wos- 4 ,) Clement teaches 
that the Son is equal to Him ; forasmuch, that is, as He has 
the same Divine Nature in common with the Father. But 
strange indeed is the answer which Sandius makes to this re 
markable passage of Clement, " It appears," he says, " to be 
corrupt." Is it so indeed ? Let Sandius then produce even 
one single manuscript in which the passage is read other 
wise? He cannot. But, as is plain, the sophist is prac- 
tising his old device. Whenever he is pressed by the testi 
mony of any ancient writer, the force of which he cannot 
elude in any other way, his custom is to cut the knot which 
he is unable to untie ; unblushingly asserting, in spite of the 
consent of all MSS. to the contrary, that the passage is cor- 
rupt, that the author thought and wrote otherwise. But 
who gave to the trifler this authority over ancient authors, 
to reject as spurious whatever in them is displeasing to 
him ? " But," he says, " it appears to be corrupt, from the 
reason which is alleged, for Clement immediately subjoins, 
Because He was His Son. From which reason it was natural 
for Gentiles to deduce a conclusion quite opposite ; for it 

and, in the Godhead, coeternity ; against Sandius. 579 

had never entered into their minds, to suppose that the BOOK iv. 
Son was equal to, and coeval 1 with, the Father." But for CH |4. n 
what purpose did Sandius add here the words " and coeval CLEM. 
with ?" For the word does not occur in the passage cited, ALEX - 
nor is Clement in that place treating directly of the co 
eternity of the Son, (that he asserted in other passages, 
which we have elsewhere adduced,) but rather of His being 
equal in nature to the Father; which he infers most cor 
rectly from His being the true and genuine Son of the Father, 
begotten of His substance, and subsisting in Him. This in 
ference, I say, is by universal consent firm and solid. For, 
as I remarked a little before, a human father and a human 
son are alike, and entirely equal in respect of the self-same 
human nature which is common to them both. But if 
Clement had concluded from the same reasoning that the 
Son is likewise coeval with the Father, he would not have 
been wide of the mark. The co-eternity of the Son neces 
sarily follows from His consubstantiality, as we have shewn 
in another place 6 . For although in the case of mankind it 
is necessary that the son should be posterior to his father in 
point of time, reason itself teaches us that it must be laid 
down to be wholly otherwise in the case of God. No Person, 
who was not before in being, can begin to exist of and in the 
Divine Essence itself, consistently with the unchangeableness 
of the Divine Nature. But that God is unchangeable, is the 
common sentiment 2 of all mankind. Therefore, if the Son [713] 
be the true and genuine Son of God the Father, that is, 
having His origin of the substance of the Father, and sub 
sisting in Him, it necessarily follows that He must be not 
only equal in nature to the Father, but likewise co-eval and 
co-eternal with Him. Sandius, at last, thus concludes his 
reply, " I do not see/ he says, " in what way Clement could 
make the Son equal to the Father, when he calls Him the 
minister of the Father s will. " However, if Sandius did not 
yet see this, when he wrote that, he may now at length see 
it, from what we have said in this chapter. Indeed, to speak 
frankly, the arguments of the Enucleator, both here and in 
what follows, savour of one who is not only estranged from 

e [See book iii. chap. 1. 1.] 

p p 2 

580 Tertullian held the Divine Persons to be of one power 

ON THE the Catholic faith, but also destitute of right judgment. May 
God bring him to a more sound mind f . 

5. After Clement we must place Tertullian; who, in seve 
ral passages, manifestly attributes to the Father a superiority 
over the Son, as is known to almost all, through [the writings 
of] Petavius, Sandius, and others; so that I should waste 
both time and trouble in citing the passages themselves. 
But the same Tertullian a point on which these writers 
have generally remained silent does also often, and thaf no 
less openly and expressly, lay down that the Son is in nature 
equal to the Father. For instance, in book iv. of his Treatise 
against Marcion, chap. 25 s, he teaches, that "the Father 
delivered all things to Him who is not less than Himself 
to the Son : all things, [I say,] which He created by Him." 
Sandius reply to this passage deserves rather to be laughed 
at than answered. He looks out for difficulties where none 
J nondum exist 1 . The same Tertullian expressly declares, that the 
Bather, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are not only of one 
substance, but also [of one] power; that all the names and 
[714] attributes of the Father belong also to the Son ; that the Son 
2 pariari, i s on a par 2 with God the Father; that God the Father and 
et porem the Sou are joined and made equal*. These express passages, 
esse. which allow of no escape, we have already adduced, in book 

ii. 7. 4. [p. 198, 199.] To these passages, however, you may 
add the following : Tertullian, in his Treatise on Chastity, 
chap. 21 h , acknowledges, as we have before observed, "a 
Trinity of One Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Ghost." By these words he evidently meant to signify, that 
all the Three Persons of the Godhead are by nature alto 
gether equal. For thus he expresses himself in chap. 7. 1 of 
his Treatise against Hermogenes; "Nor shall we approxi 
mate to the opinions of the Gentiles, who, if at any time 
they be forced to confess God, yet will have other gods below 
Him. The Godhead, however, has no gradation, for It is 
4 unica. only one 4 ." And presently afterwards, he says k , "The God- 

f [See these words of Clement ex- nionibus nationum, quae si quando co- 

amined and explained again in the guntur Deum confiteri, tamen et alios 

author s reply to G. Clerke, 7.] infra ilium volunt. Divinitas autem 

[p. 440, quoted above, p. 198.] gradum non habet, utpote unica. [p. 

h [p. 574, quoted above, ii. 7. 6. 235.] 

p. 203.] k Minor se (divinitas) nusquam po- 

1 Neque enim pvoximi erimus opi- terit esse. [Ibid.] 

and substance ; equal, yet with gradations of order. 581 

head can in no case be less than Itself/ Accordingly, in BOOK iv. 
chap. 18. of the same Treatise, he expressly teaches that 4/5. 
God from eternity had His Wisdom co- existent with Him- TERTUL- 
self, as being 1 "not set under Him, nor in state 1 different , LIAN> 


from Him." Here he manifestly infers that Wisdom, or 
the Son of God, is equal and on a par with God, whose 
Wisdom He is, from this, that He is not different from Him 
in state, that is, is of one substance 2 with Him. When, 2 
therefore, in his Treatise against Praxeas, chap. 2 m , Tertul- 
lian says that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are 
three, " not in state but in gradation," he altogether means 
by gradation, order, but not greater or less Godhead. For 
whom he acknowledges to be three in gradation, Them he 
denies to be different in state. But with Tertullian, as we 
have seen, for a thing not to be different from another in 
state, means, not to be set under 3 it, but to be on a par and ssubditam. 
equal to it. Hence in the same passage, presently after, he 
expressly says, that the three Persons of the Holy Trinity are 
all of one power ; and consequently that no One of Them is 
more powerful or excellent than Another. Therefore the [715] 
Godhead " has no gradation," that is, " is in no case less than 
Itself," as Tertullian distinctly explains himself; yet there are 
gradations in the Godhead, that is, a certain order of the 
Persons, of whom One derives His origin from Another ; in 
such wise that the Father is the first Person, existing of 
Himself; the Son second from the Father, whilst the Holy 
Ghost is third, who proceeds from the Father through the 262 
Son, or from the Father and the Son. It is therefore with 
out just ground that certain learned men have charged Ter 
tullian with holding the heresy of Apollinaris, who main 
tained that in the divine Persons there are " gradations 
of dignity," ((BaOpovs rwv a^iw^arwv, as the Greek theolo 
gians express it ;) and as Theodoret states n , that in the 
Trinity there were "great, greater, greatest, the Holy Ghost 
being great, the Son greater, the Father greatest." Cer- 

Non sibi subditam, non statu di- //a] rb fj.tya, fJ-f^o 

versam. [p. 239.] yd\ou fjikv UVTOS TOV Trvev/maros, TOV 8e 

m [p. 501.] vlov (Mfifrovos, /neyicrTov 8e TOV Tlarp6s. 

" [eV eviois 8e] j8a0/uous ata>^aTz/ Theodoret. de Hser. fab., f. 107. [iv. 

eauroi/ Stavofj.ea TTJS Oeias x J - 8. vol. iv. p. 240.] 
ofj.r\s. avrov yap e crrtj/ ( vpt- 

582 Novatian held the equality, with the subordination, of 

ON THE tainly the very learned author most openly rejected this wild 

N^ION^OF notion. And with Tertullian agrees Novatian, or the writer 

THE SON. o f the Treatise on the Trinity, inserted among the works of 

Tertullian ; for he likewise, whilst he maintains that the Son 

is less than the Father, so explains himself, as to refer that 

1 minorita- being less [of His] (so to call it) to the relation of origin 

tern istam. ^^ Hi wordg are express in chap 31 p . The g on ^ he 

says, " must needs be less than the Father, because He knows 
that He is in the Father, having an original, because He is 
begotten." With respect however to the Divine Nature 
Itself, the same author plainly teaches that the Father 
and the Son are one. For towards the end of chap. 23, in 
explaining the words of our Lord to the Jews, I and the 
Father are one/ he thus writes ^; "Thus with regard to the 
[716] charge of blasphemy, He calls Himself the Son, not the 
Father; with respect, however, to His own divinity, by say 
ing, I and the Father are one/ He proved that He is the Son 
and also God. Therefore He is God, but yet in such a way 
as to be the Son, and not the Father." The author s mean 
ing is plain; Christ, in His discourse to the Jews, preserved 

* Qoxfy. unimpaired both the pre-eminence 2 and prerogative of the 
Father, and at the same time His own true divinity, equal to 
that of the Father ; the former, in that He acknowledged the 
Father, but confessed Himself to be the Son ; the latter, by 
saying that He and the Father are one. Whence the author 
infers, that the Son is very God, equally with the Father, 
with this only difference, that the one is the Father, the 
other the Son. 

ORIGEN. 6. Origen, in book 8. of his work against Celsus, of set 
purpose maintains this prerogative of the Father in com 
parison with the Son r ; "But suppose it to be the case," 
he says, " as [may be expected] in a numerous body of per 
sons who believe, and admit of difference of opinion, that 
some from their precipitancy put forth [the view] that our 
Saviour is the God who is over all ; still we do not say any 
such thing, [we] who believe Him when He says, The Father, 

P Necesse est ut hie minor sit, dum sius, Ego et Pater unum sumus dicendo, 

in illo esse se scit, babens originem, Filium se esse etDeum probavit. Deus 

quia nascitur. [p. 729.] est ergo, Deus autem sic, ut Filius sit, 

i Ita quod ad crimen blasphemise non Pater. [p. 722. J 

pertinet, Filiurn se non Patrem dicit; r [ 14. p. 752, quoted above, p. 

quod autem ad divinitatem spectet ip- 250, note r.J 

. . , . . . 
1 [c. 27. ii. p. 10 
u [i. 26. p. 59.] 
x [i. 24. p. 209. 

8 [r}>v eVl Traai 0eoi/ The Benedic- trfiov ?vai, <f>a^fi> rbv vlbf ou/c 

tine editor reads rbv /j.eyi(rrov eVi iraffi repou rov Tlarpbs, oA.A. 

ebi>, as we have intimated above, in /cat rovro \eyo/m.ev, avrcp Trei06/j.evoi el- 

ii. 9. 12, p. 250. B.] Tr6vri rb, O Uar^p, 6 vc^as yue, yuetfcj/ 

106.] fjiov eo-Tt. [ 15. p. 753.] 

z p. 258. [ 39. p. 608, quoted be- 

t ] low.] 

acupoos yap ^ue?s, ot Xeyovrfs rov a ou /x<Ws 8e /J.jas KaO ^u.s 4ffr\v 

KrivavTOS /cat rbv alaOr^rbv n6- 6 rwv 6\(av &fbs Kal Tlarrjp /uere Sw/ce 

the Son. Origen taught the same doctrine. 583 

who hath sent Me, is greater than IV ;j He is, as we have BOOK iv. 
already observed, reflecting on the Noetians, who said that C 5%" 
our Saviour is God the Father Himself, who is called the Lord ORIGEN 
of all. In opposition to them he shews, that our Saviour 
is in such wise another than the Father, that He is in a cer 
tain way even less than He. And this profession of his he l ratione. 
delivers as the common doctrine of the Church, classing those 
who taught otherwise among the heterodox. A little after in 
the same book, when Celsus alleges against the Christians, as [717] 
their common received view, the heretical doctrine of Marcion, 
who taught that Jesus, who is from God the Father, is superior 
to God the Creator of the world, (as we learn from Irenseus, 
i. 29*, Justin Martyr, Apol. ii. p. 70 U , Tertullian against 
Marcion, i. 14, and Theodoret, book i. on the Fables of the 
Heretics, on Marcion x ,) he thus replies^ , "For we, who say 
that the sensible 2 world also is His who made all things, dis- 
tinctly affirm/ (for so must Origen s Greek be translated, 
not as Gelenius has rendered it, not at all understanding 
the meaning of the passage,) "that the Son is not mightier 
than the Father, but inferior to Him. And this we maintain, 
persuaded by Him who said, the Father, who sent Me, is 
greater than I/ " Lastly, this same Origen, in his fifth book 
against Celsus 2 ,, calls the Son, "the second God" (rbv Sev- 
repov Qeov). Notwithstanding, this very Origen himself 
manifestly teaches, in more than one place, that the Son is 
equal to and on a par with the Father. For in his sixth 
book against Celsus, when the Epicurean makes the Chris 
tians say, that " because God is great and difficult to con 
template, therefore He sent His own Spirit into a body like 
ours, and sent Him down to us, that we might be able to 
hear and learn of Him," Origen answers him as follows*; 
" According to our doctrine not the God and Father of all 
alone is great, for He has imparted of Himself and His 
greatness to the Only-begotten and First-born of every 

584 Origen interpreted by himself. 

ON THE creature ; in order that He being the image of the invisible 
NATION OF Gd, may even in His greatness preserve the image of the 
THE SON, father. For it is not possible that there should be, so to 
speak, a proportionate and beautiful image of the unseen 
[718] God, unless it represent the image of His greatness also." 
263 Here you see, that [very] Origen, who elsewhere says that 
the Son is less than the Father, expressly affirming in 
this place that the Father communicated even His great 
ness with the Son, in such wise that the Son entirely cor 
responds in greatness with His Father. How then may you 
reconcile these statements ? The thing is clear ; the Son is 
less than the Father in respect of His origin, but He equals 
the greatness of the Father, in so far as, being begotten of Him, 
He has the same Divine Nature in common with Him. The 
Son is as great as God the Father ; but this very thing, that 
He is as great, He refers to the Father [as] received [from 
Him] . Moreover, the same Origen, in the passage which we 
quoted a little before from the fifth book against Celsus, pre 
dicates of the Son, that He is " the second God," in such wise 
as that he expressly subjoins this caution, that it must .not 
be understood of any divine perfection, as being in the Father 
and not in the Son. These are his words 1 ; "Albeit, then, 
we call Him second God, let them know, that by the second 
1 ape-TV- God we mean nothing else than the Power 1 which embraces 
all Powers/ Immediately afterwards he calls the Divine 
Person of Christ "the very Word, and the very Wisdom, 
[719] and the very Righteousness." Origen then most clearly inti 
mates, that he and other catholic Christians, in calling the 
Son of God the second God, in no way meant to ascribe an 
imperfect divinity to the Son ; but, on the contrary, acknow 
ledged that the Son is in such sense second God, as that He 
is Himself veriest 2 God, and not less than He, who is called 
the supreme God, that is, than God the Father, in any per 
fection of the Godhead ; and, therefore, that the Son is called 

"yap kavrov Kal rrjs ^ueyaAeiJTTjTos rep b Kav Sevrepoi ovv \eyci}/J.ei> ebv, 

/j.ovoyeve? ital irpcaroTOKCt! irdcrr)s /crurecos tffTtaffav on rbv Sevjepov eb;/ OVK &\\o 

iv eiKwi avrbs rvyx at/<av rov aopdrov rt Xzyofj-tv, 3} rty TrepieKTiK^v irao~)V 

ou Kal eV T< /Aeyedzi a&^ri rfyv f lKova aperitif aper^y. [p. 608.] 
TOV Tlarpos. ov yap ol6vre "}}v, el^ai c [ IrjcroS . . . (ji&vov TeAeicos ^wpTJcrat 

(, tV ovruts bvofjLa,ff(a, Ka\ /caA7?i> SeSui/rj/xeVou TTJV aKpav /j.erox hv TOV av- 

eiitova TOV aopdrov eoG, /UTJ /cat rov ro\6yov, Kal TTJS avroo-otyias, Kal rrjs 

,U7e 0ous irapio-racrai> T}\V et/c^a. p. avroSiKaioavvns. Ibid.] 
323. [ 69. p. 684.] 

Dionysius Alex. ; his express orthodox statements. 585 

second God, on this ground only, in that He is God of God ; BOOK 
that is, has His origin from God the Father. In a word, 


Origen called the Son second God, in no other sense than ORIGEN. 
that in which Basil, in a passage which we shall presently 
quote, called Him second in order from the Father. When, 
however, I read these statements in Origen, how am I grieved 
at those calumniators, who have attributed to this most learned 
and holy father the heresy of teaching " that the Son in com 
parison with the Father is a very small 1 God d !" For, unques- J perpar- 
tionably, there is scarce any one of the primitive fathers who vum * 
has rejected this blasphemy more distinctly than he. 

7. Dionysius of Alexandria, in his Replies subjoined to his DIONYS. 
Epistle against Paul of Samosata, in the Reply to Quest. 4 e , ALEX< 
introduces Christ as thus speaking, in Jeremiah ; " I, the 
personal, ever-existing Christ, who am equal to the Father in 
respect of the unvaryingness of His hypostasis," [or according 
to the Latin version used by Bp. Bull, " in that I am in no 
thing dissimilar to Him,"] You may read the whole passage 
quoted also in Greek in book iii. 4. 3. [p. 425.] Now what 
can be clearer than these words ? He says expressly that the 
Son is equal to the Father ; which he also proves by this rea 
soning, that the Son is in nothing dissimilar to the Father, 
in other words, has the same Divine Nature in common with 
the Father. And this is the very point which we maintain, 
viz. that the ancient doctors, who preceded the Nicene Coun 
cil, acknowledged the Son to be in respect of nature equal to 
the Father. Dionysius again, in these same Replies, says f ; 
" This is He, unto whom all things were put in subjection by [720] 
the Father ; not being inferior to the Father, He prayed in 
our behalf." Here he explicitly denies that the Son is inferior 
to the Father. Lastly, in his Apology as quoted by Athana- 
sius, he confesses " the Trinity undimimshed," ajjueiwrov rrjv 
TptaSa ; by this he can mean nothing else than that the God 
head is not diminished or less in One Person of the most holy 
Trinity than in Another ; but that there is in Each Person en 
tire, full, and perfect Godhead. See the passage quoted in full 

d [See above, book ii. c. 9. 18; f avr6s fffnv $ vtrerdyr] ra "iravra 

the charge is St. Jerome s, except that napa rou Tlarphs, OVK &j> eXdrrcav rov 

Bp. Bull here substitutes "God" for Uarphs, virep r)fj.a>v Trpotrrjularo. Bibl. 

" Light."] Pair., toin. xi. p. 300. [Resp. ad. Qusest. 

e [p. 232, see above, p. 425.] ult. p. 275.] 


586 St. Greg. Thaumaturgus, and the Council of Antioch. 

in book ii. 11. 5, at the end", [p. 309 h .] In like manner, the 
~ F Creed of Gregory Thaumaturgus distinctly declares the Trinity 
THE SON, co-equal also, even as co-eternal. For he clearly asserts, "a 
perfect Trinity, not divided nor alien in glory, [and eternity, 
and rule,] and dominion." And specially as respects the Son, 
the same confession teaches that God the Father is "the Per 
fect Begetter of the Perfect ;" afterwards it designates the Holy 
Ghost "Image of the Son, Perfect of the Perfect." See book ii. 
12. 1. [p. 323.] In his panegyric on Origen, which, as all alfow, 
is his genuine work, the same Gregory, as he teaches, that the 
Son honours and praises the Father, (which shews alike the 
pre-eminence of the Father, as the Father, and the economy 
undertaken by the Son,) so does he expressly affirm that the 
Father " honoured the Son, with a power every way equal to 
His own," and " that He circumscribed 1 His own infinite 
majesty in the Son." See the same book and chapter 4. [p. 
330.] With this agree the six bishops who wrote an Epistle 

[721] to Paul of Samosata in the name of the whole Council of 
Antioch. These are their express words in that Epistle k re 
specting the Son of God; "Throughout the whole Church 

ffvwffas, under heaven is He believed to be God, having humbled 1 
Himself from being equal with God ; and man also, and of 
264 the seed of David according to the flesh." In this place they 
profess that they delivered the consent of the Catholic Church, 
and they interpret the famous passage of the Apostle Paul in 
his epistle to the Philippians ii. 6, just as Catholics at this day 
do. Further, even the Creed of Lucian the martyr, which 
the Arians made so much boast of, distinctly teaches that 
the Son is not only God of God, but also " Whole of Whole," 
and "Perfect of Perfect;" which words altogether excluded 
that partial and imperfect divinity of the Son, such as heretics 
have dreamt of; see book ii. 13. 5. [p. 344.] Lastly, there 
is an express statement of the same Arnobius, who often 
declares that the Son of God is true and veriest God, a 
statement which we quoted above 1 that " [one] God, in that 

* Compare my notes on that chapter. k eV <n? KK\-r]<ria rfj virb rbv ovpavbv 

GRABE. iraari TreTrurTeirrcu &ebs /ue*/, Ktvuxras 

1 [note r.] eavrbv airb rov e2Vat Iffa <, avOpcvrros 

1 [These words are not used by S. 8e Kal e/c o-Tre p^aros Aa&S vb Kara 

Gregory ; see the passage referred to, vdpita. Bibl. Patr., toin. xi. p. 300. 

and Bp. Bull s paraphrase, in which the [Reliq. Sacr., vol. ii. p. 473.] 

words, "as it were, circumscribed His l [Lib. vii. p. 212, quoted above, 

own infinite Majesty," occur.] iii. 4. 9. p. 429.] 

Views of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 587 

He is God, differs in nothing from another [God] ; nor can BOOK iv. 
that which is one in kind exist in a less or greater degree in c A 7 % n 
its parts, preserving the uniformity of its proper quality." DloNYSi 
According to Arnobius, therefore, the Son of God, in that He ALEX. 
is God, differs in nothing from God the Father; nor is there 
more in the Father than in the Son ; but in both of these 
Divine Persons there is an uniform Godhead ; that is to say, 
God the Father and the Son are in respect of nature abso 
lutely equal. For Arnobius thought with Tertullian, that 
" the Godhead has no gradation, and can in no case be less 
than Itself." Yet the same Arnobius does, in more passages 
than one, designate God the Father the supreme God, in the [722] 
sense, that is, which we have often explained. 

8. Thus far we have set forth the views of those of the 
ancients who flourished within the first three centuries ; we 
must now proceed to shew that the catholic doctors who 
wrote after the rise of the Arian controversy, and were the 
most resolute defenders of the faith established by the 
Nicene fathers, agreed with them. Alexander, bishop of 
Alexandria, who was the first to repress the heresy of Arius 
as it was springing up, in an Epistle, which he wrote to his 
namesake, the bishop of Constantinople, accurately un 
folds the catholic doctrine of the pre-eminence of the Father 
compared with the Son in the following words" 1 ; "We must 
therefore carefully preserve unto the unbegotten Father His 
own proper dignity, saying that no one is to Him the cause 
of His being. Whilst unto the Son we must assign the 
honour that befits [Him], attributing to Him His generation 
from the Father which is without beginning, and, as we said 
before, giving Him worship ; only in His case using reverently 
and religiously [the expression] He was/ and always/ 
and before all ages/ not however avoiding the acknowledg 
ment 1 of His divinity, but ascribing to [Him who is] the 
Image and Impress of the Father, a likeness 2 in all respects 

m OVKOVV T$ (JL\V faftvrtfrtp Tlarpl Kal eu^Tj/icos rb r\v, /cat rb ael, Kal rb 

otKf iov aia)/j.a QvXaKTtov, /^rjSeVa TOV irpb a.i<av<av XtyovTts eir avrov TTJV 

tlvai avrqi T^V alriov \tyovTas. T<j5 Se (JL^VTOL fle^T/jra avrov /U.T) TrapaiTovfjiei/oi, 

vlcf TT\V ap/j.6ov<rav Tifj-r^v a7rove^,7jTeoi/, oAAa rfj et /cJi/t /cat T^J xapaKTrjpi TOV 

TTf)v &vapxov avrcf irupa TOV TlaTpbs ytv- TletTpbs a7n7/cpi^aj/xeVrjj/ e jU^epetav Kara 

vt\oiv Tas, Kal a>s <p6a<ra/ji.i , irdvTo. avand^VT^s T^ Se aytwriTov TOO 

avrif (Te /3as aTrovefJiovTes, p.6i>ov euaeySws Harpl p.ovov i Si w/xa irapflvai. 

588 SS. Athanasius , Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, 

ON THE most exact ; but holding that the property of being un- 
NATION D OF begotten belongs only to the Father, seeing that our Saviour 
THE SON. Himself says My Father is greater than I/ " These words 

[723] need no comment ; and with Alexander agrees his successor 
in the see of Alexandria, Athanasius, who in his second 
oration against the Arians 11 , in expounding our Saviour s 
words " The Father is greater than I," writes thus : " The 

Kpeirruv. Son did not say, the Father is better 1 than I, lest any,one 
should conceive that He was foreign to the nature of the 
Father ; but He said is greater/ not indeed in any magni 
tude nor in time, but on account of His being begotten of 
the Father Himself." 

9. Basil the Great, in his first book against Eunomius, 
lays open the matter lucidly in these words : " For, inasmuch 
as the Son has His beginning from the Father, the Father is 
in this respect greater, as being the cause and beginning ; 
wherefore also our Lord said thus, My Father is greater 
than I ; that is, in that He is the Father. And what else 
does the word Father intimate than this, to be the cause and 
beginning of that which is begotten of Him? But in all 
cases, even according to your own philosophy, substance is 
not said to be greater or less than substance." Again, in the 

[724] third book, near the beginning? : "The Son," he says, "is 
indeed in order second to the Father, because He is of Him ; 
and in dignity, because the Father is the beginning and cause 
of His being." In like manner Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 
xxxvi.<i; " The being greater belongs to the cause, the equality 
to the nature." And presently, in the same passage, he 
refutes the interpretation of those who would have it said 

are 5r) Kal avrov <pdo"Kovros rov ffoorrj- &\\o cry /naive t, $) ovxl rb atria elvai, Kal 

pos, 6 Uarrip p.ov fj.eifav /iou eari. o-PX^ T v e avrov yevvr]6evros ; 6 Aws 

Apud. Theodorit. E. H., i. 4. p. 18. 5e ovo~ia ovo~ias Kal Kara rr\v vfj-erfpav 

edit. Valesii. [p. 19.] trocpiav fat> Kal eXarrwv ov \eyerai. 

" 6 vlbs OVK eipriKev, 6 Tlarrjp /J.QV Oper., torn. i. p. 724. [ 25. vol. i. p. 

Kpeirra>v /JLOV e<rrlv, Iva /ULTJ eVoi/ ris 236.] 

rr\s fueivov Qvffews avrbv virohafioi p 6 vlbs rdei viev Sevrepos rov Tla- 

oAAa /ieifcoi/ elireis, ov /AfyeOei rivl, ovSe Tpus, on O.TT eKeivov Kal aica/j.ari, on 

Xpovcf, aAAa Sia rrjv e| avrov rov Tla- a-px^] Kal alria rov elt/at avrov 6 Tlarrjp. 

rpbs yewTjffiv. Oper., torn. i. [Orat. i. [p. 272. for alria rov eivai avrov 6 

58. p. 462.] Tlarrip, the Benedictine editor reads 

eTreiST) yap airb rov Tlarpbs TJ apx"n T<f elvai avrov irarepa.~\ 
r$ viy, Kara rovro /j.eifav 6 Tiar-f\p, us i rb ^ei^ov /j.ev effrl rfjs airias rb Se 

afrios Kal apx-f]. Sib Kal 6 Kvpios ovrws foots, rr\s <pvffeus. p. 582. Orat. xxx. 

flirev 6 Uarrip fj.ov ^eifav fjiov earl, 7. p. 544.] 
KaOb Uarrip $r)\ovon. rb Se, Uarrip, ri 

Cyril Alex., and Damascene, concur in the same view. 589 

that the Father is greater than the Son as man, by this BOOK iv. 
reason, which is no despicable argument 1 ; "For to say c | A 8 P 5 9 n 
forsooth that He is greater than the Son, considered in His 265 
human nature, is indeed true, but is no great [matter] ; for 
what wonder is it, if God be greater than man?" Lastly, 
he thus writes in his fortieth Oration 8 : " f Greater is not 
said with respect to the nature, but to the cause, for of 
things that are of one substance none is greater or less 
in [point of] substance." On which passage Nicetas makes 
this comment, " Since the Son has His cause from the 
Father, in this sense the Father is greater, as being the 
cause. In no way, however, is the essence of the One 
greater or less than the essence of the Other." Chrysostom 
in Homily Ixxii. on John, says*, "But if one say that the 
Father is greater, in that He is the cause of the Son, we will 
not contradict him on this point." Cyril of Alexandria like 
wise, in book xi. of his Thesaurus, affirms that the Father [725] 
is called greater, in so far forth as He is the cause ; in the 
following words" : " Therefore, although the Son with respect 
to His essence is equal to the Father, and like Him in all 
things, He yet calls Him greater, as being without beginning, 
He Himself having a beginning only in that He is of the 
Father 1 , although He has His existence concurrent with Him." * Kara 
Lastly, John Damascene, in his work on the Orthodox Faith [Vniy h 
i. 6 V , says : " But if we say, that the Father is the beginning Jj^ 6 ^ 6 ,, 
of the Son and greater, we do not imply that He is prior 2 to 2 TpOT6 . 
the Son, in time or in nature, (for through Him He made the p*fav. 
worlds,) or indeed in any other respect, except that of cause; 
that is, in that the Son is begotten of the Father, not the 
Father of the Son ; and that the father is physically the 
cause of the Son." 

r rb yap 8^7 \4yeiv, tin rov Kara rbv Quotas /caret iravra, (jLelfava avrov fyr\aiv t 

avQpcairov VOOV/J.CVOV /jLeifav, aArjdes, ws avapxov, e^ow apxyv Kara u,&vov rb 

ov /j.sya Se ri yap 6av/j.aarbv, el yttet"a>i> e | ov, el Kal ffvfSpofj.ov avrcf rr\v v-jrap- 

avOpdairov eos. [p. 545.] (j/ ex 6 - [vol. v. ] p. 85. 

s ov yap Kara rfy fyvaiv rb /ue?"oi/ v et Se \eyo/j.ev rbi/ Tlarepa apx^iv 

rr\v alriav Se. ouSev yap TWV 6/j.oovcri<av tivai rov viov, Kal /xei foya, ov Trpore- 

rfj ovaia v-tl^ov ^ eAarrov. p. 6()9. pcvfiv avrbv rov vlov XP^ V V % <pvafi 

[Orat. xl. 4*3. p. 725.] vito<pa(vou.V Si avrov yap rovs aiuvas 

1 et Se, Ae 7ot ris u.eiova eTi/ot r bv tiroirjvev ouSe Kad erep6v ri, et ^ 

jrarepa, Kad & airios rov vlov, oi5e Kara rb at-riov rovrfcrnv ori o vlbs e /c 

TOWTO avrepov/j-ev. [Ixxv. 4. vol. viii. rov Harpbs fyevvfjOr], /cat oi>x 6 Tlar-^p 

p. 418.] e/c rov vlov Kal on 6 flar^p a(ri6s tan 

u faos roiyapovv Kara rbv rrjs ovcrtas rov vlov (pvaiK&s. [i. 8. p. 136.] 
\6yov \nrapx<0v b vlbs r$ Uarpl, Kal 

590 Latin fathers ; the Father greater in respect of causation, 

ON THE 10. We will now bring forward a few out of many witnesses 
SUBORDI- of the Latins. We have already quoted in our last chapter x 
TJiTsoN. 17 the words of Marius Victorinus to the same effect, from his 
~ first book against Arius. Hilary, in his ninth book^, acutely 
explains that passage of John, " My Father is greater than 
1 aut nun- I," in these words : " Is the Father greater 1 ? Certainly the 
9 uid -- non - Father is greater, seeing that He is the Father; but the 
Son, seeing that He is the Son, is not less. The Son s being 
* nativitas. begotten 2 makes the Father greater, and yet the nature of 
a nativita- begetting 3 suffers Him not to be inferior." And a little before 
he had observed 2 ; "The Father therefore is greater than the 
Son, and plainly greater, to whom [i. e.] He gives to be as 
great as He Himself is ; to whom by the mystery of His be 
getting He imparts to be the image of His own ingenerateness; 
whom He begets of Himself [so as to be] in His own form." 
Again, in his eleventh book a , "In this that They are in Each 
4 in sese. Other 4 , understand the Godhead of [Him who is] God of God ; 
but in that the Father is greater, understand it as an acknow 
ledgment of the Father s being the Author." The author of 
the Questions on the two Testaments, which are appended to 
the fourth volume of the works of Augustine, in Question cxxii. 
near the end b , says, " in no respect at all does He differ in 
substance, because He is a true Son ; He differs however in 
degree, [in respect] of causality, because all power in the 
Son is from the Father : and in substance the Son is not less 
[than the Father], yet in being Author the Father is greater." 
And Augustine himself asserts, in his treatise De Fide et 
Symbolo, chap. 9, that the Father is said to be greater than 
the Son, not only because of the human nature, which the 
Son assumed, but also because of His eternal generation : he 

x 4. [pp. 561, 562.] p. 1020.] 

y Aut nunquid Pater major non est? a In eo quod in sese sunt, Dei ex 

Major itaque [utique, Bull.] Pater est, Deo divinitatem cognosce. In eo vero 

dum Pater est; sed Filius, dum Filius quod Pater major est, confessionem 

est, minor non est. Nativitas Filii paternae auctoritatis intellige. [ 12. 

Patrem constituit majorem ; minorem p. 1089.] 

vero Filium esse, nativitatis natura non b Nihil plane difFert in substantia, 

patitur. [ix. 56. p. 1022.] quia verus Filius est; difFert autem in 

z Major itaque Pater Filio est, et causalitatis gradu, quia omnis potentia 

plane major, cui tantum donat esse, a Patre in Filio est; et in substantia 

quantus ipse est; cui [qui, Bull] minor non est Filius; auctoritate ta- 

innascibilitatis esse imaginem sacra- men major est Pater, [vol. iii. part 2. 

mento nativitatis impertit ; quern ex Append, p. 132.] 
se in formam suam generat. [ 54. 

not of nature ; Hilary; Augustine; Council of Sar die a. 591 

there says that the words in John are spoken " partly because BOOK iv. 
of the ministry of the manhood which He assumed, partly be- $ io,*n. 
cause the Son owes to the Father that He is [i. e. His being], 
owing indeed this also to the Father, that He is equal to or 
on a par with the Father; whereas the Father, whatever 1 He ! quicquid 
is, owes it to no one." But why should I thus enumerate est 
one by one the opinions of individual doctors ? The catholic 
council of Sardica, consisting of about two hundred bishops 
of the east and west, (two hundred and fifty according to 
Theodoret,) explicitly delivered the same doctrine in their 
symbolical Epistle d : "Nor does any one," say the fathers, [727] 
"ever deny that the Father is greater than the Son, not 
[indeed] on account 2 of another substance, or on account of 2 v ** 
any other difference ; but because the very name of the 

Father is greater than that of the Son." ** 


11. This therefore was the uniform view of catholic anti 
quity, that unto God the Father indeed, as the alone unbe- 
gotten, "His own proper dignity" (oi/ceiov a%la)fj,a), as we 
just now heard Alexander of Alexandria call it, must be re 
ligiously preserved ; in such a way, however, as that the true 
Godhead of the Son be not in any degree impaired. For 
it appertains even unto the glory of God the Father, that we 
entertain worthy sentiments respecting His Son ; and, on the 
contrary, that man in reality does an injury and dishonour 
to the Father, who imagines that He begat an imperfect Sou, 
or maintains that there is any diminution in the Divine 
Nature. The former Hilary well sets forth in book iv. of his 
work on the Trinity, in the following words e : " But being 266 
about to speak of the most perfect 3 majesty and most full s absoiu- 
Godhead of the only-begotten Son of God, we do not suppose tl! 
that any one will imagine that the whole of this discourse, upon 
which we are about to enter, tends to the disparagement of 
God the Father, as though, if any of these things be ascribed 

c [sed ilia posita sunt] partim prop- <riv, ov 5i &\\rjv Utieuftopdv a\\ 6ri 

ter administrationem suscepti hominis avrb rb ovofj.a rov Tlarpbs /*& &m 

. . . partim propter hoc quia Filius Pa- rov vlov, A pud. Theodorit. E. H., ii. 

tri debet quod est ; hoc etiam debens 8. p. 82. edit. Valesii. 

utique Patri, quod idem Patri aequalis e Dicturi autem de absolutissima 

aut par est; Pater autem nulli debet majestate et de plenissima divinitate 

quicquid est. [ 18. torn. vi. p. 159.] unigeniti Dei Filii, non existimamus 

d ouSe ns apvc irai TTOTC rov Tlarepa quenquam arbitraturum, omiiem hunc 

rov vlov (Mfi^ova ov 81 H\\ijv virovra- sermonem, quo usuri erimus, ad Dei 

592 Zeno; to detract from the Son, is to detract from the Father. 

ON THE to the Son, the dignity of the Father be diminished ; whereas, 
KAT" ON D OF rather > the honour of the Son is the dignity of the Father, 
THE SON, and the Author is glorious, from whom He, who is worthy of 
such glory, has proceeded. For the Son has nothing but what 
is begotten, and admiration of the honour of that which is 
1 inhonore. begotten, is to the honour 1 of Him who begat it. The notion 
then of disparagement falls to the ground, when, whatever of 
majesty shall be shewn to be in the Son, shall redound to 
amplify the power of Him who begat such an One/ The 
[728] latter position is no less clearly set forth by Zeno Veronensis, 
or whoever was the author of the discourse ascribed to him f , 
upon these words, "When He shall have delivered up the 
kingdom to God, even the Father ;" " The Father," he says, 
" possesses the whole, the Son [possesses] the whole ; what 
belongs to Both belongs to One; what One possesses, belongs 
to Each, as the Lord Himself says, All things which the 
Father hath are Mine/ because the Father abideth in the 
Son, and the Son in the Father. To Him is [the Son] sub- 
2 decore ject as is seemly 2 , by affection not by condition, by love not 
ur by necessity; Hethrouhg whom the Father is always honoured. 
Lastly He says, I and My Father are one ; the Son, therefore, 
dimhm- is subject to the Father, not by a disparaging 3 , but, as I said, a 
rel i iosa dutiful 4 subjection; together with whom there is retained [by 
Him] one possession of an original and everlasting kingdom, 
one substance of co-eternity and omnipotence, one equality, 
one power of august majesty, one dignity in united light. 
For whatever you take from the Son will go to injure the 
6 CU J US to - Father, of whom He has the whole 5 ; nor is there in Him any- 

tum habet. J 

Patris contumeliam pertinere, quasi ex Pater, omnia me a tua sunt, et tua om~ 

ejus dignitate decedat, si quid eorum nia mea :~\ quia Pater in Filio, et Filius 

referatur ad Filium; cum potius honor manet in Patre. Cui affectu, non con- 

Filii dignitas sit paterna ; et gloriosus ditione, charitate, non necessitate, de- 

auctor sit, ex quo is, qui tali gloria sit core subjicitur; per quern Pater sem- 

dignus, extiterit. Nihil enim nisi na- per honoratur. Denique inquit, Ego 

turn habet Filius, et geniti honoris ad- et Pater unum sumus ; unde non dimi- 

miratio in honore generantis est. Ces- nutiva, sed religiosa, ut dixi, subjec- 

sat ergo opinio contumeliae, cum quic- tione est Filius Patri subjectus ; cum 

quid inesse Filio majestatis docebitur, quo originalis perpetuique regni una 

id ad amplificandam potestatem ejus, possessio, coaeternitatis omnipotent! - 

qui istiusmodi genuerit, redundabit. aeque una substantia, una aequalitas, 

p. 35. [ 10. p. 832.] una virtus majestatis augustae, unito 

f Totum Pater, totum possidet Fi- in lumine una dignitas retinetur. Si 

lius; unius est, quod amborum est; quid enim Filio detraxeris, ad Patris, 

quod unus possidet, singulorum est; cujus habet totum, injuriam pertinebit; 

Domino ipso dicente, Omnia quezcunque nee est in illo aliquid, quod ait infe- 

habet Pater, mea sunt ; [et iterum ; rius ; quia sicut Pater, nee plus potest 


Story of the old bishop and the emperor Theodosius. 593 

thing which is inferior ; because, like the Father, He can have BOOK iv. 

c \\ } 

neither more nor less ; for the one is infused into the fulness c 

of the other ; so that the blessed God is all in all, the Father 
in the Son, and the Son in the Father, together with the 
Holy Ghost. Amen/ 

12. This striking passage of Zeno recalls to my memory 
a remarkable story, which may be found in Sozomen, Eccles. 
Hist. vii. 6, with which I shall conclude this chapter. In the 
reign of Theodosius the Great, on the occasion of a visit of his 
to Constantinople, the bishops who were in that city went to 
the palace, as was usual, to salute the emperor ; among them, 
it is said, there was a certain old man, the bishop of an ob 
scure city; simple indeed, and unversed in the business of the 
world, but endued with the understanding of Divine things. [729] 
The other bishops saluted the emperor with all courtesy and 
respect ; and in like manner did the old bishop also salute 
the emperor; but the son of the emperor, who was seated 
with his father, he by no means treated with the like honour ; 
but coming near him, said to him, as to a boy 1 , " God bless 1 salve, fili. 
thee, my boy," and began to stroke him with his hand. Upon 
this the emperor being indignant, and resenting it as an injury 
done to his son, in that he had not been treated with equal 
honour to himself, commanded the old man to be thrust out 
with disgrace : but, as they were putting him out, he turned 
and saids, "Do you, O emperor, consider that thus is our 
Heavenly Father also angry with those who honour not His 
Son as they honour Himself 2 , and who presume to say, that 2 & VOfMtuSm 
He is less than He who begat Him." The holy man in these 
words glanced at the Arians, who, being still numerous, owing 
to the patronage of the emperors Constantius and Valens, 
used to assemble freely, and discuss about God and His sub 
stance ; and persuaded those who favoured their belief at the 
court to make trial of the emperor s disposition 3 ; as Sozomen 3 
relates at the beginning of the chapter we have referred to. 
The emperor, however, was struck with the words, and re- 

habere, nee minus ; alter enim in alte- 8 oVru ^ v6fuffov, & flaenAeO, ical 

rms plemtudmem infusus est. Ut sit rbv ovpaviov irarfpa a-yavaKrelv Trpbs 

omma in omnibus Deus benedictus, robs avo/uoius rbv vibv Ti^v-ras, KO.\ 

Pater in Filio, Filius in Patre, cum fyrroj/a roX^vras airoKaXw rov yev- 

Spmtn Sancto, Amen. Bibl. Patr., rfjffavros. [Socrates, H. E., vii. 6.1 
torn. u. coll. 424. 



594 The early fathers seem to speak as if they thought that the 
ON THE calling the bishop, asked his forgiveness, and confessed that 


what he had said was true. 






1. THE testimonies of the ancients, which we have quoted 
in the preceding chapter, respecting the absolute equality of 
the nature of the Father and the Son, saving the pre 
eminence of the Father in that He is the Father, are indeed 
most clear. Such statements of theirs, on the other hand, as 
seem to be opposed to these testimonies, we have, for the most 
part, noticed and explained, when we were setting forth their 
teaching one by one, respecting the consubstantiality of the 
Son in the second book, and His co-eternity in the third. 
There remains now, if I remember aright, but one difficulty 1 
to be solved, and that well worth the trouble. We have re 
served the solution of it until now, because it does not occur 
in one or two ancient writers only, but runs through the 
remains of nearly all the primitive fathers. I confess that 
this was at one time a stumbling-block to myself, and there 
fore I think it my duty to attempt to remove it out of the 
way of others. Nearly all the ancient Catholics, then, who 
lived before the time of Arius, appear not to have been aware 
of the invisible and immeasurable 2 nature of the Son of God. 
For they repeatedly speak of the Son of God as if, even in 
His Divine Nature, He were finite, visible, comprehended in 
some definite space, and circumscribed, as it were, by certain 
cancellis. limits 3 . For, when they would prove, that He, who in former 
times appeared and spoke to the patriarchs and holy men 
under the Old Testament, being distinguished by the name of 
Jehovah, was the Son of God Himself, they commonly employ 
the following disjunctive argument ; that He who appeared was 

8 immen- 

Son was included in a limited space and visible. Justin M. 595 

either the Son of God, or a created angel, or God the Father. BOOK iv. 
That it was not a created angel [which appeared] they infer 
from this, that He is called by the Holy Spirit Jehovah and 
God. Again, that it was not the Father they prove from 
this, that He is immeasurable, filling all places, and compre 
hended in none ; and therefore that it were impious even to 
imagine that He Himself had appeared in some definite place, 
or narrow corner of the earth ; as if, forsooth, that very thing 
might be predicated rightly and without danger of the Son 
of God. By a like process of reasoning they also teach that 
the Son of God is visible. 

2. In this way, certainly, Justin Martyr, almost the earliest 
of the fathers, [argued] in his Dialogue with Trypho h . 
Where, when Trypho denies that the angel who appeared to 
Moses in the burning bush was God Himself, and asserts 
that an angel indeed appeared in the flame of fire, but that 
God, (that is to say, the Father,) conversed with Moses, so 
that in the vision there were then two at the same time, both 
the angel and God, Justin replies thus : " Even if this did 
happen then, my friends, that both an angel and God were 
together in the vision which was made to Moses ; as also has 
been shewn to you in the preceding words ; [yet] it does not 
follow that it was God the Creator of all things who said to 
Moses, that He was the God of Abraham, and the God of 
Isaac, and the God of Jacob ; but He who, as has been 
before shewn to you, was seen by Abraham and Jacob, 
ministering to the will of the Creator of all things, and 
who in the judgment of Sodom in like manner ministered 
to His counsel and will 1 . So that, even if it be, as you say, 
that there were two, both an angel and God, still no one, 
who possesses ever so little understanding, will venture to say 
that the Maker of all, and Father, left all above the heavens, 

h [! Hal rovro yeyove r6re, < <f>l\ot, (ret virnperwv, Kal ev rrj Kpivei ruv So 

ws Kal ayyeXov nal^ 0ebi> 6/j.ov eV rf) U/j.<av rfj ftouXrj avrov opo ioos 

brrttfffo rf) r$ Moxre? yevoftevr) inrdp^ai ffas Sxrre K$V, us <f>are, ex??> 

&s Kal a-jroSfSeiKrai V/MV 8i& rcav irpoyt- ^crav, Kal ayyeXos Kal ebs, \6yuv, 011% ^6 iroir}r^s rwv iroi^v TUV 6\wv Kal irarepa KaraXi- 

6\(av earai &ebs 6 T$ Mcoa-e? elirav ir6vra ra virep ovpavbv airavra, eV oXiycp 

avr bv ?j/^t ebv A(3paa/j., Kal ebj> yrjs /j.optca irftydvOai iras 6(ni(rovv, K&V 

Itroa/c, al ebv la/ccb/8, a\\ 6 euro- p.iK.pbv vovv X wv t ro\fji f)ffet 6t7T?j/. 

9*tXO*ls vfj.7v S><j)0ai T$ A&paafj. Kal rf 60. p. 157.] 
la/ccb/8, rf) rov iroirjrov ruv 6\(*v 6e\-fi- 

Q q2 


596 Tertullian and Novatian : hence they argue that He who 
ON THE an d appeared in a narrow portion of the earth." A parallel 


NATION OF passage occurs in another place in the same Dialogue. A 
THE SON - similar mode of reasoning is also employed by Theophilus of 
[732] Antioch, in his second book to Autolycus 1 , and in like man 
ner argue Irenseus, Origen, and those six bishops who wrote 
the Epistle from the Council of Antioch to Paul of Samosata, 
in passages which we shall quote below. 

3. Among the Latins, again, Tertullian in his Treatise against 
Praxeas, chap. 16 k , has the same argument; " But what a 
thing it is," he asks, " that the almighty invisible God whom 
no man hath seen nor can see, He who dwelleth in light un 
approachable, He who dwelleth not in [temples] made with 
268 hands, from before the sight of whom the earth trembles, arid 
the mountains melt like wax, who holds the whole world in His 
hand like a nest, whose throne is heaven, and the earth His 
footstool, in whom is all place, Himself not in place, who is 

1 extrema the uttermost bound 1 of the universe, the Most High that 

He should walk in paradise in the [cool of the] evening in 
search of Adam, and shut up the ark after Noah had entered 
it, and at Abraham s tent refresh Himself under an oak, ,&Cr 
Surely these things would not have been to be believed 
even of the Son of God, unless they had been written; per 
haps they would not have been to be believed of the Father, 
even though they were written, [the Father] whom these 
men 1 bring down into the womb of Mary, and set before 
Pilate s judgment-seat, and shut up in the tomb of Joseph. 
Their error, then, appears from this ; for being ignorant 
that from the beginning the whole order of the Divine ad- 

2 decucur- ministration has had its course 2 through the Son, they believe 


1 p. 100. [ 22. p. 365.] &c. Scilicet et haec nee de Filio Dei 

k Caeterum quale est ut Deus omni- credenda fuisse, si scripta non essent ; 

potens ille irivisibilis, quern nemo vidit fortasse non credenda de Patre, licet 

hominum, nee videre potest, ille., qui scripta ; quern isti in vulvam Maria? 

inaccessibilem lucem habitat, ille, qui deducunt, et in Pilati tribunal impo- 

non habitat in manu factis, a cujus nunt, et in monumento Joseph conclu- 

conspectu terra contremiscit, montes dunt. Hinc igitur apparet error illo- 

liquescunt ut cera, qui totum orbem rum ; ignorantes enim a primordio 

manu adprehendit velut nidum, cui omnem ordinem divinae dispositionis 

ccelum thronus, et terra scabellum, in per Filmm decucurrisse, ipsum cre- 

quo omnis locus, non ipse in loco, qui dunt Patrem et visum, et congressum, 

universitatis extrema linea est, ille Al- et operatum, &c. [p. 510.] 
tissimus, in paradiso ad vesperam de- [The Noetian or Patripassian here- 

ambulaverit, quserens Adam, et arcam tics, whose views, as held by Praxeas, 

post introitum Noe clauserit, et apud Tertullian is refuting.] 
Abraham sub quercu refrigeraverit ? 

came down and was seen under the O. T. was the Son. 597 

that the Father Himself was both seen, and held converse, BOOK iv. 
and wrought/ &c. He is followed, as usual, by Novatian, 
or the author of the book on the Trinity, among the works 
of Terfcullian, near the end of chap. 25 m ; "But if the same 
Moses," he says, " every where represent God the Father 
as immeasurable and infinite, not such as to be inclosed in 
space, but Himself inclosing all space ; not as one who is in 
[any] place, but rather in whom all place is ; in such wise con- [733] 
taining all things and embracing all things, as that properly 1 1 merito. 
He neither ascends nor descends, inasmuch as He does Him 
self both contain and fill all things ; and yet, notwithstanding, 
introduces God as going down to the tower, which the sons 
of men were building, considering, enquiring, and saying, 
e Come/ and then, { Let Us go down/ &c., Who will they 
have it, was the God who here came down to the tower, and 
at that time visited and enquired of those men ? Was it God 
the Father? Then is He now inclosed in space; and how 
doth He Himself embrace all things? or is it an angel with 
[other] angels who, he says, went down and said, Come/ &c. 
In Deuteronomy, however, we perceive that it was God who 
spake these words, &c. It was not the Father, therefore, who 
went down, as the fact shews ; nor an angel who gave those 
commandments, as the fact proves. It follows then, that He 
descended of whom the Apostle Paul says, He that de- [Ephes. 
scended is the same also that ascended/ &c., that is, the Son lv< 10 - 
of God, the Word of God." 

4. Who, indeed, but must be utterly amazed at these sur 
prizing statements of the fathers? Are we to suppose that these 
writers were so dull and inconsistent as to suppose that the 
Son of God, whom they every where else declare to be very 

m Quod [quid] si idem Moyses ubi- et homines tune illos visitare quaeren- 

que introducit Deum Patrem immen- tern? Deum Patrem ? ergo jam loco 

sum atque sine fine, non qui loco clu- clauditur ; et quomodo ipse omnia 

datur, sed qui omnem locum cludat ; complectitur ? aut numquid Angelum 

nee eum, qui in loco sit, sed potius in cum angelis dicit descendentem, et di- 

quo omnis locus sit ; [sic] omnia con- centem, Fenite, &c. Sed enim in 

tmentem et cuncta complexum, ut Deuteronomio animadvertimus, retu- 

merito nee descendat, nee ascendat, lisse Deum haec, &c. Neque ergo 

quoniam ipse omnia et continet et im- Pater descendit, ut res indicat; neque 

K et; et tamen nihilominus introducit Angelus ista praecepit, ut res probat. 

eum descendentem ad turrim, quam Superest ergo, ut ille descenderit, de 

aedificabant filii hominum, considerare quo apostolus Paulus, Qui descendit, 

quaerentem, et dicentem, Fenite, et ipse est qui ascetidit, &c., hoc est, Dei 

mox, descendamtts, &c., quern volunt Filius, Dei Verbum. [p. 723.] 
hie Deum descendisse ad turrim illam, 

598 Their view explained; why the being manifested by visible 

ON THE God of very God, was at any time circumscribed within the 
ATKnfor narrow bounds of one and that a small space, or that He was 
THE SON. j n jjis own actual nature visible ? Far be it from us to think 
so of men so distinguished. By what clever expedient then, 
you will say, can such words of theirs be set right ? I am quite 
of this opinion, that those ancient writers, who have expressed 
themselves somewhat harshly on this subject, stated a view in 
other respects most true, though in a manner unsuitable a>nd 
incorrect. For they were in controversy with adversaries who 
obstinately denied that the Person of the Son is distinct from 
the Father ; and being carried away with too great a desire of 
contradicting these men, they fell into unguarded expressions, 
[734] It will be apparent to any one who looks into the authors them 
selves, that the words of Justin, Tertullian, and Novatian, 
which we have just quoted in full, are certainly of this stamp. 
But these and the others, whom I have mentioned, did in 
reality mean nothing else by such expressions, than, that the 
Son of God, who is everywhere present with His Father, and 
is in His own nature invisible equally with the Father, was 
KO.T ol*6- yet, by way of an economy 1 , seen in certain definite places, that 
-^ snewe( j Himself to men by means of certain outward sym 
bols of His presence, for them to behold Him, when convey 
ing to them the commands and will of God the Father Him 
self. But, you will say, if, when those fathers affirm, or at 
any rate insinuate plainly enough, that the Son of God was 
at certain times inclosed in the narrow compass of a definite 
place, and seen by men, they meant nothing else than that 
He exhibited in certain definite places sensible symbols and 
tokens of His presence; why were they so anxious to re 
move this very thing from God the Father, as if it were un 
worthy of His supreme majesty? For it would seem that 
God the Father also might have manifested Himself to men 
in exactly the same way, without any lowering of His 
majesty. My answer is, that the primitive doctors were of 
an exactly opposite opinion ; forasmuch as, in their view, God 
the Father never was seen, or could be seen of any man, not 
even through assumed forms. He had not originated from 
any beginning, nor was He subject to any one ; nor can He 
be said to have been sent by another, any more than to have 
been begotten of another. On the contrary, the Son of God, 

symbols belongs to the Son, and not to the Father. 599 

in that He is begotten of God the Father, on that ground at BOOK iv. 
least is indebted to the Father for all His authority, and it 
is no less honourable to Him to be sent by the Father, than 
to be begotten of the Father. He is of the Father; through 
Him the Father created all things which are in the world ; 
moreover through Him He afterwards revealed Himself to 
the world. In the most holy Trinity, although there is no 
disparity of nature between the Father and the Son, yet is 

there certainly a kind of 1 order, according to which the * 
Father is the principle and head of the Son; which order 
would be inverted, if the administration of the universe were 
effected by the Son through the Father, not by the Father 
through the Son. To come more closely to the objection 
proposed ; the primitive fathers used to refer those manifes 
tations of God which were made to holy men of old, in all 
cases, to the economy or dispensation of human salvation ; 
which dispensation they thought that the Son of God had 
undertaken, not then for the first time when He came in 
the flesh, but from the very fall of the first man, as has 
been shewn above 11 ; but that same dispensation they thought 
altogether alien from 2 God the Father. For on the same 2 alienam 
ground that, in opposition to the Patripassians, the Catho- a * 
lie Church of Christ ever acknowledged that the incarna 
tion, which the Son took on Him, became not God the 
Father ; on the same ground those ancients asserted, that 
the manifestations of which we speak, were suited to the 
Son, and not to the Father, inasmuch as they were in reality 
preludes of the incarnation. That this was the very meaning 
of those ancient writers two things prove ; first, they all in 
many other passages allow that the Son, as well as the Father, 
is in His nature, indeed, immeasurable and invisible; in the 
next place, most of them do themselves expressly interpret 
those statements of theirs of the economy. We will, how 
ever, confirm this our answer, by examining individually the 
passages of the ancients which we have adduced, and com 
paring them with other expressed sentiments of theirs. 

5. Justin Martyr, who in his dialogue with Trypho con 
tends that the [Divine] Person who appeared to Moses in the 
bush was the Son of God, on the ground that it would be 

11 Seei. 1. 12. [p. 24.] 

600 They held that He who appeared was true God, but God 

ON THE absurd to say that God the Father appeared in a narrow 
corner f the earth ; as if, indeed,, that very statement could 
without absurdity be made of the Son of God ; this same 
[736] Justin, I say, speaks in other passages with extreme honour 
of this same [Divine] Person. For instance, in his Hortatory 
Oration to the Greeks , he thus writes : " For it was fitting, 
I think, that He who was to be the ruler and captain of the 
Hebrew race, should first of all know the [self-] existent 
1 rbv ovra, God *. Wherefore having appeared to him first, so FAR AS 


6 &v. him, I am He that Is 2 / " God, therefore, who spoke to Moses 
out of the burning bush, appeared in no other way than 
became God ; that is, not by passing from place to place, or 
so as to be inclosed within the narrow limits of any place; but 
by framing a visible form and an audible voice, He manifested 
Himself to the holy prophet. A little after in the same pas 
sage he says, as we have observed already, that that descrip 
tion, whereby the [Divine] Person who appeared to Moses in 
the bush designated Himself to him, "I am He that Is," was 
" suitable to the ever-existent God," (TG ael OVTL 6)eo> Trpoa-tf- 
K6iv.) No one, however, can doubt that Justin acknowledged 
the ever-existent God to be in His own nature immeasurable 
and invisible. What, therefore, Justin has elsewhere said of 
the Divine Person who was seen by Moses, that He appeared, 
" inclosed, as it were, in a narrow corner of the earth," must 
be referred to the economy, of which I spoke, that was under 
taken by the Son. But the same Justin explains the matter 
more clearly in the Apology for the Christians, which is 
entitled the Second? ; where he again contends, that it was 
our Saviour, who spoke with Moses out of the burning bush, 
and said, " Take off thy shoes [from off thy feet] , and come 

[737] near an( i hear." Moreover a little afteri he clearly teaches, 
that it was Christ who in His own Person spoke those words, 
" I am He that Is, the God of Abraham," &c. " What was 
spoken," he says, "ont of the bush to Moses, f l am He 
that is, the God of Abraham, and the God of [Isaac, and 

eSet yap, ol/^ai, rbv apxovra Kal <bavrivai &fbv, $77 irpbs avrbv, Eyu> et ^cu 

ffrpar^ybv rov TUV E(3pai(av yevovs 6 lav. p. 20. [ 21. p. 22.] 

ecrecrOai jUeAAofra, Trpurov airdvT<av rbv p p. 95. [Apol. i. 62. p. 80.] 

tWa yi.v(a(TKLV e6v Stb /cat rovry 1 rb 8e ipr]fj.fvov e/c &O.TOV Tip Maxre?, 

<poi/e)s, us ?ii> Swarbis av&putircf) Eya> d/Lu 6 &v, b ebs AfipaafJi, Kal 6 


the Son, being as Son, sent by and ministering to the Father. 601 

the God of Jacob,] and the God of thy fathers/ is sig- BOOK iv. 
nificant of this, that though dead they yet remain, and are CH P 5. m 
the people 1 of Christ Himself." But what kind of manifes- JUSTIN M. 
tation is there, which could possibly have been suitable to 
the Son of God, seeing He is the [self-] existent, the God of 
Abraham, &c., which yet would be unbecoming to God the 
Father ? This difficulty Justin had himself solved in the same 
passage thus ; Though Christ, as the genuine Son of God, be 
the ever-existent, and the God of Abraham, &c., equally with 
the Father ; still He is also the Angel r and Apostle of God the 
Father, as Justin expresses it, appointed by the Father for 
this purpose, of announcing His will to men. In executing 
this office He does nothing unworthy of Himself; for (as 
I said before) it is not less honourable to the Son to be sent 
by the Father, than to be begotten of the Father. These 
are Justin s words 8 ; "The Word of God is His Son, as we 
said before, and He is also called Angel and Apostle 2 . For 2 air6(no- 
He announces whatsoever is necessary to be known, and is Xos 
sent to shew us whatsoever is announced." That all this, 
however, pertains to the dispensation which the Son of God [738] 
undertook from the first springing of the Church 3 , and ful- 3 nascente 
filled 4 at last by His incarnation, the blessed martyr shortly J cc 
afterwards* intimates explicitly. " This discourse," he says, vit. 
" is intended to shew that Jesus Christ is the Son of God 
and the Apostle ; being previously the Word, and having ap 
peared sometimes in the form of fire, and sometimes in the 
likeness of incorporeal beings ; and now by the will of God 
having become man for the sake of the human race." To 270 
the same effect is an observation which Justin makes, in his 
Dialogue with Trypho, when, after enumerating the names 
and appellations given to our Saviour in the Scriptures, such 
as, The Glory of the Lord, the Son, Wisdom, the Angel, 

IffaaK, Kal 6 ebs Ia/cw/3, /cat 6 airayyeXXfi ocra 5e? yvcaa-Brjvai, Kal 

T>V ira.Tfp<ai> ffov, a^fJiavTiK. bv TOV airo(TTf\\Tai ^.t]vvff(av 6cra ayyf\\eTai. 

airoQav6vTas e/ceiVous yueVetf, Kal 95. [p. 81.] 

avTov TOV Xpto-Tov avdpdirovs. aAAa ets air68eiij/ yey6va<riv oftte 

p. 96. [ 63. p. 82.] of \6yoi, 6n vlbs Qeov Kal aTr6aro\os 

r Compare what we have transcribed l-rj<rovs 6 Xpicrrbs e cm, Trpdrtpov \6yos 

below from Novatian, 8, and from &v, Kal eV t Sea Trvpbs irore (pavels, irorf 

Hilary, 14. 8e Kal eV fiK^vt do-co^arcoj/, vvv 5e 8<a 

8 6 \6yos Se TOV Qeou ea-rlv 6 vlbs 6\r)/j.aros eov inrep TOV avOpcairfioi, 

avTov, us 7rpoe07j/if Kal ayye\os Se yevovs fodpemos ytvo/j.evos. p. 96. [p. 

KaA.e?ra<, Kal air6o~TO\os. avTbs yap 91.J 

602 It belonged to the Son to be the dispenser of the 

ON THE God, the Lord, and the Word, he immediately subjoins 11 , 
NATION"^ " For He nas a11 these appellations, both from His ministering 
THE SON, to the Father s will, and from His being begotten of the 
Father by [His] will." Now without doubt he used the 
name Angel in reference to His administering to the 
olKovo^lav. Father s will, that is, to the dispensation 1 ; even as [He 
used] the appellations, Glory of the Lord, Son, Wisdom, 
God, Word, [in reference] to His divine generation from the 
Father. Moreover, that Justin acknowledged the omni 
presence of the Son of God is clear, both from other pas 
sages and from his own express words in what is usually 
called his First Apology v , " [He (the Saviour)] was and is 
[739] the Word, which is existent in all things." Here he teaches 
that the Word, who is also called the Son of God, permeates 
and pervades, as it were, the whole compass of created nature, 
and is present in all things ; and cannot therefore be circum 
scribed in any place, much less within a narrow corner of the 
earth. For, as it seems, in the same sense God the Father 
Himself also is called in Scripture, He who is "through all 
and in all/ Eph. iv. 6. But as regards the Son of God, in 
so far as He is in the most proper sense the Son of God, 
the same Justin thought that so far is He from falling under 
the cognizance of our eyes, that He cannot be comprehended 
by the mind even of man or of angel. For in a remarkable 
passage, which I have already x quoted from his Epistle to 
Diognetus, he calls the Son of God Himself, "the Truth, 
and the holy and incomprehensible Word." Thus far con 
cerning Justin. 

6. The matter will appear yet more clear from Irenseus. 
In book iv. 37 J he says, " The Word became the dispenser 
of the Father s grace for the benefit of mankind, on whose 
behalf He wrought so great dispensations, shewing God to 
men, and exhibiting man to God ; preserving indeed the in 
visibility of the Father, that man should not any time become 

u ex ei yap Traz/ra 7rpoowo;ua"e<r0cu etc tise factus est ad utilitatem hominum, 

re rov uTrrjpere?*/ T< irarpiKCf) jSouA/^uciTi, propter quos fecit tantas dispositiones ; 

Kal CK rov airb rov Harpbs 0eA?70-i ye- hominibus quidem ostendens Deum, 

761/770-001. p. 284. [ 61. p. 158.] Deum (lege Deo, Bull; ita legit, ed. 

v \6yos i]v Kal l(rnv 6 eV ira.vr\ &v. Ben. (B.) et Grab.) autem exhibens 

[Apol. ii. 10. p. 95.] hominem ; et invisibilitatem quidem 

x ii. 4. 7. [p. 146.] Patris custodiens, no quando homo 

y Verbum Dispensator paternae gra- fieret contemptor Dei, et ut semper 

Father s grace to mankind, from the time of the fall. 603 

a despiser of God, and that he might ever have somewhat BOOK iv. 
towards which to make progress; again, on the other hand, t A $ & 
by many dispensations shewing God unto men to be seen of IRENJEUS. 
them, lest man wholly falling away from God should cease to 
be." In these words he teaches us, as Petavius himself has 
observed, that the Father indeed has never appeared, not 
even under the disguise of an external form ; but that the 
Word manifested Himself to the ancients, not indeed in 
Himself, and according to His proper substance, but under 
some image. To this I add that Irenseus here expressly 
says, that, in all the manifestations of God the Father 
through His Word, the Word was made the dispenser of the [740] 
Father s grace for the benefit of mankind ; that is, that all 
the manifestations 1 of the Son of God pertained, as I have 
said, to that dispensation 2 , which from the beginning He 
Himself undertook for the salvation of men. Parallel to M "- 
this is the following passage, which is found in the same 
chapter z ; " Therefore," he says, " if neither Moses, nor 
Elias, nor Ezekiel, saw God, though they saw many of the 
heavenly things; and what were seen by them were si 
militudes of the glory of the Lord and prophetic of things 
future ; it is evident, that the Father indeed is invisible, of 
whom the Lord also said, No one hath seen God at any 
time/ but His Word, according as He Himself willed, and 
for the benefit of those who beheld Him, shewed the glory 
of the Father, and set forth His dispensations 3 ; as the 3 disposi- 
Lord also has said, The Only-begotten God, who is in the 
bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." And that 
all those appearances of the Son of God, under the Old 
Testament, were preludes, and, as it were, specimens of His 
future incarnation, and had reference to the dispensation 
of man s salvation, undertaken by the Son, Irenseus himself 

haberet ad quod proficeret ; visibilem rum ; manifestum est, quoniam Pater 

autem rursus hominibus per multas quidem invisibilis, de quo et Dominus 

dispositiones ostendens Deum, ne in dixit, Deum nemo vidit unquam ; Ver- 

totum deficiens a Deo homo cessaret bum autem ejus, quemadmodum vole- 

esse. p. 371. [c. 20. 7. p. 255.] bat ipse, et ad utilitatem videntium, 

z Igitur si nequeMoyses vidit Deum, claritatem monstrabat Patris, et dispo- 

nec Helias, nee Ezechiel, qui multa de sitiones exponebat ; quemadmodum et 

ccelestibus viderunt ; quas autem ab Dominus dixit, Unigenitus Deus, qui 

his videbantur, erant similitudines cla- est in sinu Patris, ipse enarravit, p. 

ritatis Domini, et prophetiae futuro- 372. [ 11. p. 256.] 

604 Irenceus held the Son to be invisible equally with the Father, 

ON THE expressly teaches us, in chap. 26. a of his fourth book, saying, 
TION D OF " It is He Himself, who says to Moses, I have seen, I have 
THE SON. seen the affliction of My people which are in Egypt, and I 
have come down to deliver them ; [viz.] the Word of God, 
who from the beginning was accustomed to ascend and de 
scend for the salvation of such as were afflicted." But that 
the Son of God is, in His own nature, invisible equally with 
the Father, the same Irenseus distinctly asserts again, in 
chap. 41. b of the same book. For he says that througn the 
Christian religion we are taught "that there is one God, 
who is above all principality and dominion, and power, 
and every name which is named/ and that His Word, being 
[741] by nature invisible, became palpable and visible among men, 
and condescended even unto death, and that the death of 
the cross/ Here also Irenaeus (as it may perhaps be worth 
while to observe in passing) in these words, " His Word being 
by nature invisible, became palpable and visible among men, 
and condescended even unto death," seems to me to have 
certainly had in view the remarkable passage of Ignatius, in 
his epistle to Polycarp c , Irenseus s master; in which the apo 
stolic man calls Christ the Son of God, " Him who is invi 
sible, Him who for our sake was visible, Him who is impal 
pable, Him who is not liable to suffering, Him who for our 
sake became liable to suffering." You may read the passage 
of Ignatius entire in book iii. 1, 3, of this work, [p. 371.] 
To proceed : in the fourteenth chapter of the aforesaid book 
Irenaeus gives a clear exposition of the whole matter, teach 
ing that the Father, indeed, and the Son are alike incompre- 
271 hensible by the creatures, [but] equally comprehensible One 
by the Other ; but that, nevertheless, every manifestation of 
the Father is made through the Son ; accordingly that the 
Father sends, and the Son is sent. His words are these d ; 
" But forasmuch as from the one God, who both made this 

a Ipse est qui dicit Moysi, Videns nomen quod nominatur ; et bujus Ver~ 

vidi vexationem populi mei qui est in bum naturaliter quidem invisibiletn, 

JEgy^to, et descendi ut eruam eos ; ab palpabilem et visibilem in hominibus 

initio assuetus Verbum Dei ascendere factum, et usque ad mortem descendisse, 

et descendere, propter salutem eorum mortem autem cruets. 379. [c. 24. 2. 

qui male haberent. [c. 12. 4. p. 241.] p. 260.] 

b [nova doctrina] . . . esse . . . unum c [ 3. p. 40.] 

Deum, qui est super omnem principalum, d Sed quoniam ab uno Deo, qui et 

et dominationem, et potestatem, et omne hunc mundum fecit, et nos plasmavit, 

but to become visible for us ; his clear statements. 605 

world and formed us, and holds together and administers BOOK iv. 
all things, the Only-begotten Son came to us, summing up 1 c ?^ y* I? 
into Himself what He had Himself formed, my faith in Him i RENjEUS . 
is firm, and my love to the Father immovable ; both being * recapi- 
given to us by God e . For no one can know the Father un 
less by the Word of God, that is, unless by the Son revealing 
Him ; nor the Son, without the good pleasure of the Father. 
Now it is the good pleasure of the Father that the Son fulfils, 
for the Father sends ; but the Son is sent and comes. And [742] 
the Father indeed who is invisible and illimitable, so far as 
we are concerned His own Word knoweth, and though He 
be inexplicable 2 , yet doth He reveal 3 Him to us. Again the 2 inenar- 
Father alone knows His own Word. But that both these 8 


things are so the Lord has made manifest ; and for this rea 
son, the Son reveals the knowledge of the Father by the 
manifestation of Himself; for the manifestation of the Son 
is the knowledge of the Father ; since all things are mani 
fested by the Word." This certainly is a sufficient proof, 
that the views of Irenseus were perfectly sound and catholic. 

7. But the statements of Clement of Alexandria on this CLEMENT 
subject are clearer than light itself 4 . For he distinctly joins 4 LEX 
together the immensity and the omnipresence of the Son of i v 
God with the dispensation 5 which He undertook, in the very 5 cecono- 
remarkable passage which you may read in his Strom. vii. f : miam - 
" For/ 3 he says, " the Son of God never quits His own watch- 
tower ; not being divided nor severed, nor passing from place 
to place ; but being every where at every time, and not con 
tained any where. [He is] all mind, all light of the Father, all 
eye, seeing all things, hearing all things, knowing all things, 

et omnia continet, et aclministrat, uni- Verbum suum solus cognoscit Pater, 
genitus Filius venit ad nos, suum Utraque autem base sic se habere ma- 
plasma in semetipsum recapitulans, nifestavit Dominus ; et propter hoc 
firma est mea ad eum fides, et immo- Filius revelat agnitionem Patris per 
bilis erga Patrem dilectio, utraque Deo suam manifestationem ; agnitio enim 
nobis prsebente. Neque enim Patrem Patris est Filii manifestatio ; omnia 
cognoscere quis potest, nisi Verbo Dei, enim per Verbum manifestantur. [c. 
id est, nisi Filio revelante ; neque Fi- 6. 2. p. 234.] 

Hum, sine Patris beneplacito. Bonum e [Thus far the words are a quota- 

autem placitum Patris Filius perficit; tion by Irenseus from the book of Jus- 

mittit enim Pater; mittitur autem et tin Martyr against Marcion. B.] 

venit Filius. Et Patrem quidem in- f ov yap ^iffrarai irore rfjs avrov 

visibilem et indeterminabilem, quan- TrepicoTrrJs 6 vlbs rov 0eoC^ ov /xepifo/ue- 

tum ad nos est, cognoscit suam ipsius vos, OVK airoTffj.v6/j.vos, ov ^raftaivuv 

Verbum, et cum sit inenarrabilis, ipse tic f6irov fls T6irov, iravrri Se &v irav- 

enarrat eum nobis. Rursum autem Tore, Kai /J.r)$afj.rj 


606 Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Novatian : 

ON THE by His power searching out the powers. To Him the whole 
S A U T B roN D oF host of angels and of gods is subject, [even] to the Word of 
THE SON. the Father, who has takenS upon Himself the sacred dispen 
sation, because of Him who has subjected [them to Him.]" 
Observe, he clearly teaches that the Word, or Son of God, is 
[743] not divided nor severed, passes not from place to place, is 
always every where, and no where contained. Nevertheless 
he allows that the Son of God Himself undertook the sacred 
dispensation which the Father laid upon Him; that i s to 
say, as well under the Old Testament, when He appeared to 
the prophets and holy men, having assumed either a hu 
man, or other corporeal appearance, as also especially under 
the New Testament, when, having taken very man into the 
unity of His Person, He conversed with men upon earth. 
Surely nothing can be more explicit than this. That shame 
less writer, Sandius, however, when he impudently denies, in 
opposition to the testimony of all the MSS., that Clement 
wrote these words h , deserves no answer, certainly, but rather 
universal scorn. 

8. We have heard Tertullian, in his Treatise against 
Praxeas, speaking to this effect, that it was the Son, not 
God the Father, who of old appeared to holy men, and in 
the fulness of time became incarnate ; because He [i. e. God 
the Father] is invisible, and cannot be included in space ; this 
same Tertullian, I say, afterwards, in chap. 23. of the same 
Treatise, expressly teaches us, that this is by no means to 
be understood as implying any disparity in the nature of 
the Father and the Son, since They are inseparable the One 
from the Other, and are Both alike immeasurable and omni 
present ; but [it is to be understood] of the dispensation, which 
the Son, not the Father, undertook. For on the passage of 
Matthew xvii. 5. he thus writes in the same place 1 ; "You 
have the Son on earth, you have the Father in heaven ; this 
[however] is not a separation, but a divine arrangement 1 . 

vovs, 6\os <pws irarpyov, 8\os o^flaA^&s, % aifa5e8e7yueV<p. [A conjectural e- 

Travra 6pwv, irdvra O.KOVCCV, etS&s irdvra, mendation for the common reading, Tas 8vfdfj.fis epevva>t>. rovro} araSeSe^eVy. B. The ancient Latin 

a v-rroTfraKTai a-Tparia ayye\(v re version has suscepit.] 

6e>v, T(f \6y(f3 T$ -jrarpiKy r^v h See Append, ad Nucl. Histor. 

oiKOVOfdaaf ai/a5e8e7/xeV<p 5ia riv Eccles., p. 90. 

. p. 702. [p. 831.] * Habes Filium in terris, habes Pa- 

their explicit statements on this point. 607 

But we know, that God is even in the bottomless depths 1 , BOOK iv. 
and exists every where, but [then it is] by power and autho- c A 7 P 8 
rity ; that the Son also, being indivisible [from Him] is every TERTUL- 
where with Him. Nevertheless in the economy itself, the " AN * 
Father willed that the Son should be held 2 on earth, and abysses. 
Himself in heaven ; whither the Son Himself also look- 2 haberi. 
ing up, both prayed, and made supplication of the Father, 
whither also He taught us to raise ourselves up and pray, [744] 
Our Father, which art in heaven/ although He be also pre 
sent every where." The case 3 is the same with respect to the 3 ratio, 
divine dispensation which preceded the incarnation of the Son, 
and, indeed, with respect to all those appearances of God which 
took place under the Old Testament. For, as Tertullian him 
self had very well remarked, in a passage quoted above, out of 
the sixteenth chapter k of the same treatise, " the whole order 
of the divine administration 4 from the beginning had its 4 disposi- 
course 5 through the Son." In like manner Novatian, after 5 ^g^ cur 
proving^ (in the passage referred to above) that it was the Son rit. 
who descended to the tower of Babel, &c., by this argument, 
that God the Father is immeasurable, and is not inclosed in 272 
space ; as if, forsooth, the Son were not equally immeasurable 
and omnipresent ; nevertheless in another place in the same 
treatise, expressly attributes to the Son of God that immen 
sity and omnipresence which is peculiar to the Divine Nature. 
For in chap. 14. 1 he thus maintains the true divinity of Christ 
against the heretics ; " If Christ," he says, " be only man, 
how is it that He is present every where when invoked? 
seeing that this is not the nature of man but of God, to be 
able to be present in every place ?" How, then, are those 
appearances of God which were aforetime made to holy men, 
to be regarded as belonging 5 to the Son, and not to the 6 conve- 
Father also ? The author himself appears to me to solve this nire> 
difficulty, not obscurely, in chap. 26, where he thus speaks 

trem in ccelis ; non est separatio ista, labat a Patre, quo et nos erectos doce- 

sed dispositio divina. Caeterum sci- bat orare, Pater noster qui es in ccelis, 

mus, Deum etiam intra abysses esse, cum sit et ubique. [p. 513.] 

et ubique consistere, sed vi et potes- k [p. 510; quoted above, 3. p. 

tate ; Filium quoque ut individuum 596.] 

cum ipso ubique. Tamen in ipsa olno- l Si homo tantummodo Christus, 

vo/j.ia Pater voluit Filium in terris ha- quomodo adest ubique invocatus ? cum 

beri, se vero in ccelis ; quo et ipse haec hominis natura non sit, sed Dei, 

Filius suspicions et orabat, et postu- ut adesse omni loco possit. [p. 715.] 

608 The Son acts as Angel or Messenger of the Father. 


1 tractent. 

8 alter! 

3 subditus. 

4 adnun- 

5 [Is. ix. 
6; LXX.] 

6 summa 


7 dedecet. 

8 salva. 

of the angel who appeared to Sarah s handmaid 01 ; " Let the 
heretics consider what they have to say 1 on this passage; 
was He the Father, who was seen by A gar, or not ? for it is 
set down God/ Now far be it from us to call God the 
Father an angel, lest He be set under another 2 , whose angel 
He be. But they will say that it was an angel ; how then 
will it be God, if it was an angel, since this name is never 
conceded to angels ? unless [it be], that [pressing us] on either 
side, the truth shuts us up [and forces us] into the view that 
we must understand, that it was the Son of God ; who, since 
He is of God, is justly [called] God, because He is called the 
Son of God ; [and] since He is set under 3 the Father, and is 
the announcer 4 of the Father s will, He has been designated 
the Angel of great counsel 5 /" Where the sum of the 
argument 6 comes to this : He, who appeared to Agar, was 
either a created angel, or the uncreated God. That He was 
not a created angel, he proves from His being called God 
and Jehovah, which is the incommunicable name, and has 
never been conceded to any creature, not even to the angels 
themselves, the highest order of created beings. That it was 
the true God, then, who appeared is clear ; but what God, if 
I may so speak ? Was it the Father or the Son ? That it 
was not the Father he proves from this, that the name angel 
indicates a mission from another, and therefore a kind of 
subjection ; but God the Father is subject to none, as having 
His origin from none. It remains, therefore, that He who 
appeared was the Son of God, who, because He has His origin 
from God the Father, is on that ground, at any rate, subject 
to the Father; nor is the office itself of an angel or an 
nouncer of the Father s will unbecoming 7 Him. In a word, 
God the Father could not have become an angel consistently 
with 8 His prerogative as Father; for then He would have 
been sent by another, who yet is indebted for His authority 

m Quserant, quid in praesenti loco 
haeretici tractent; Pater fuit iste, qui 
ab Agar visus est, an non? quia Deus 
positus est. Sed absit Deum Patrem 
Angelum dicere, ne alteri subditus sit, 
cujus Angelus fuerit. Sed Angelum 
dicent fuisse ; quomodo ergo Deus erit, 
si Angelus fuit, quum non sit hoc no- 
men angelis unquam concessum? nisi 

quoniam ex utroque latere nos veritas 
in istam concludit sententiam, quia 
[qua] intelligere debeamus, Dei Fi- 
lium fuisse ; qui quoniam ex Deo est, 
merito Deus, quia Dei Filius dictus 
sit ; quoniam Patri subditus et adnun- 
tiator paternae voluntatis est, magni 
consilii Angelus pronuntiatus est. [p. 

Hence the Son is called in Scripture the Angel of God. 609 

to no one. To the Son of God, however, both the name of BOOK iv. 
God altogether belongs, as being most true God ; and also the c ^ A g ) 9" 
appellation of Angel, forasmuch as He is in such wise very TERTUJ~~ 
God, as to be God of God, and was, therefore, capable of re- LIAN - 
ceiving and undertaking, consistently with the dignity of His 
Person, the mission and dispensation committed to Him by 
God, of 1 whom He is. This, without doubt, was the very ex. 
thing which the fathers meant, who wrote the synodical 
epistle from the council of Antioch to Paul of Samosata; 
who contend that He, who in the Old Testament from time 
to time appeared to the fathers and conversed with them, was 
the Son m ; " Being attested sometimes as an angel, some- [746] 
times as the Lord, and sometimes God; for it were im 
pious to suppose that the God of all is called an angel ; but 
the angel of the Father is the Son, being Himself Lord and 
God ; for it is written [of Him] , the Angel of great coun 
sel 11 / Here the holy bishops clearly teach that the name 
of God and Lord are applicable to the Father, and to the 
Son alike 2 , but that the appellation of Angel, as indicating a 2 proinde. 
mission from another, is by no means suited to the Father, 
who can no more be said to be sent than to be born of 
another ; but to the Son, as being begotten of the Father, 
it may rightly be applied ; and on that account He is called 
in the Scriptures the Angel of great counsel/ 

9. In the same way must we explain Tertullian, when in 
the same Treatise against Praxeas, chap. 14, he distin 
guishes the Father from the Son by this characteristic, that 
the Son is visible, the Father invisible. He is followed, as 
usual, by Novatian, or the author of the book on the Trinity, 
chap. 26. But what [need I say] ? Is there any one who 
would suspect that Tertullian and his follower, (men cer 
tainly not altogether devoid of sense,) believed that the Son 
of God, in that He is God, and begotten of 3 the invisible 3 natus ex. 
God, is capable of being perceived by sight ? Without doubt, 
when they said that the Son was visible, it was not in His 

m TTore fie i/ us ayyeXos, wore 5e us Xrjs ayyeXos. [See Reliq. Sacr., vol. 

Kvpios, TTore 8e ebs /AapTvpov/jievos. rbv ii. p. 470.] 

jitey yap Qelv ruv oXuv d(re/3es ayyeXov n Isaiah ix. 6, according to the Sep- 

vo/j-iaai KaXftaQai. 6 Se ayyeXos TOV tuagint. GRABE. 
Tlarpbs o vl6s eVrty, avrbs Kvpios Kal [p. 507, 508.] 

vv. yeypaTTTai yap, 


610 Tertullian ; that the Son is in His own nature invisible. 

ON THE own Divine Nature itself 1 , but according to that economy 
NATioToF which we have been explaining ; I mean that in which He 
THE SON. Himself from the beginning shewed Himself from time to time 

1 non ip sa to men, by means of certain external and visible symbols of 
divina. His presence. If you are in doubt about this, hear Tertul- 

[747] lian himself once more, and that in the very same book and 
chapter, (namely, in his Treatise against Praxeas, chap. 14,) 
thus explaining himself in words the most express ; " Foi* we 

2 suo no- affirm," he says, "that the Son also, considered in Himself 2 

[i. e. as Son], is invisible, so far forth as He is already, from 
the condition of His substance, the Word and Spirit of God, 
and in that He is God, and Word, and Spirit ; but that He 

3 ante car- was visible before His incarnation 3 in that manner in which 

He says to Aaron and to Miriam, And if there shall be a 
prophet among you, I will make Myself known to him in a 
vision/" &c. What can be more clear? Sandius then and 
others ought to be ashamed of having so confidently attri 
buted to Tertullian this absurd view, of believing the Word 
and Son of God to be in His own Divine Nature finite and 
visible. For, if they had ever attentively read through the 
treatise of Tertullian from which they have inferred this, 
they could not have been ignorant that that most learned 
writer did in express terms reject that view. And if they 
273 were aware of this, and nevertheless wished to fix on Ter 
tullian a blasphemy of this kind, they are deservedly to be 
regarded as egregious sophists and prevaricators. But if 
they never read through that treatise, or did so only negli 
gently and superficially, they certainly were rash in pro 
nouncing on the view of Tertullian from it. 

10. I come at last to Origen. In book v. of his treatise 
against Celsus, he teaches that God the Father conde 
scends to men, not locally, TOTTUCWS, but by providence, 
TrpovoTjTiKws but that the Son conversed on earth locally, 
TOITI,KWS, also, as of old by means of assumed forms, so in 
the last times, in that true manhood which He assumed ; but 
yet in such a way as that neither was He Himself at any 

Dicimus enim et Filium suo no- ante carnem eo modo, quo dicit ad 

mine eatenus invisibilem, qua Sermo Aaron et Miriam, Etsifuerit prophetes 

et Spiritus Dei ex substantias condi- in vobis, in visione cognoscar illi, &c. 

tione jam nunc, et qua Deus et Sermo [p. 508.] 
et Spiritus; visibilem autem fuisse 

Origen; the Son omnipresent equally as the Father. 611 

time included in space, but equally with the Father ever BOOK iv. 
was and is present every where. The words of Origen are f *, i$ 4 
these F ; " God, therefore, according to His goodness, con- 
descends to men, not locally, but by providence 1 ; and the 
Son of God, not only then/ (that is, when having been made 
flesh He was dwelling among men,) "but also always, is with 
His own disciples, fulfilling that [promise of His], Lo, I am 
with you always, unto the end of the world/ And, since 
a branch cannot bear fruit except it abide in the vine, it 

is clear that the disciples of the Word also, the spiritual 2 2 
branches of the true Vine, the Word, cannot bring forth the 
fruits of virtue, except they abide in the true Vine, the Christ 
of God, who is also locally with us below upon earth; who, 
being present with those who in every place are joined to 3 3 
Him, is also at once 4 every where present with those even f "* T& " 
who know Him not. And this is what John the writer of 
the Gospel declares in the person of John the Baptist, saying, 
There standeth one among you, whom ye know not, He it 
is who cometh after me/ * From this Origen, immediately 
afterwards in the same passage, infers that prayers and vows 
are to be made not to the sun, the moon, and the stars, but 
to God the Father and the Son, as being every where pre 
sent. Thus in book ii.i, (in a passage which we have men 
tioned above,) he proves by the same testimonies of Scriptures [749] 
that the Son of God was in nowise circumscribed by the 
body which He assumed, but is every where present 5 . But 5 vOdvorr 
he reconciles the comings down of the Son of God to men vt 
with His immensity and omnipresence most clearly in book 
iv. of the same treatise; where, when Celsus objects against 
the incarnation of the Word of God, that, if God comes 
down to men, we should have to fear lest He should quit His 

ovv Kara r^v xpf]<rr6rr)ra av- Oivrj d/u.7reA<>, r<f Xptcrry rov ov, Kal 

rov oil TOTTt/fws, aAAa irpovoyTiKcas avy- fitS T]/m.cav TOTTIK&S Kara eVl yfjs rvy- 

TO?S avQp&irois Ka\ 6 rov x avoVTl bs /nerd ruv Travraxov Trpoo~- 

irats ov Tore fj.6vov, aAAa Kal acl Tre^u/c^rwi avrtf &v, ^7877 Se Kal /uera 

rwv IStwv fj.a.Qt]rS)v eVrt, TrATjpwi/ T&V OVK fl^6r(av avrbv Travraxov e<m. 

rb, iSov 4yo) /*# V/JLUV et/ut ird(ras ras Kal rovr6 ye 6 rb evayyt\tov ypatyas 

)]/j.epas, ews TTJS ffvvrf\ia5 TOV aioavos. Icodvvrjs e/t Trpoawirov rov ftairnarov 

Kal efrrep K\ij/j.a Kapirbv ov Svvarai <e- luavvov SyjAoT, Xeyovros, MeVoy v/j.jv 

peti/, eai/ ^ f^^ivri rrj d/XTreA^, STJAOI/ tffrt]Ktv, t)V u/uels ou/c olSare, avrds 

on Kal ol rov \6yov /maQr^ral, ra vor^ra fffriv 6 oiriffo) /J.QV epx6/j.vos. p. 239. 

T77$ aXTiQifris djinreAou rov \6yov K\4\- [ 12. p. 586.] 

juara, ov Svvavrai <p4p*iv rovs Kapirovs q p. 63. [ 9. p. 393. See book ii. 

TTJS operas, edj/ JUT? p.V(affiv eV rfj oArj- ch. 9. 5. p. 223.] 

R r 2 

612 The Son s coming down consistent with Omnipresence ; 

ON THE throne ; Origen r thus replies, (not only in his own name, 

NATION^"? but in that of all Christians,) " For he knows not the power 

THE SON - of God, and that < the Spirit of the Lord filleth the world, 

[Wisd. an( j ^at w hi cn containeth all things hath knowledge of the 

[Jer. xxiii. voice. Nor can he understand what is written, Do not I 

fill heaven and earth ? saith the Lord/ Neither doth he see 

[Actsxvii. that^ according to the doctrine of Christians, in Him we all 

live and move and have our being/ as Paul also teaches in 

his address to the Athenians. Whether, therefore, the God 

of all by His own power descends with Jesus into the life of 

men, or whether the Word, who was in the beginning with 

God, being Himself also God, comes to us, He is not re- 

1 OVK ?e- moved from His place 1 , nor does He quit His own seat, so as 

which before had Him not ; but the Power and Divinity of 
God is present through whomsoever He wills, and in whom 
soever He findeth a place, without change of locality, or leav- 
[750] ing one place void of Him and filling another." Will San- 
dius say, just as a little before he cavilled about Clement, 
that the passage is supposititious, and not written by Origen 
himself? Let him say so. Surely no one of sound mind will 
value at a straw the judgment of so rash and trifling a per 
son, especially when Origen states the same doctrine in 
that very fourth book, and in many other places 8 . Let the 
wretched man, however, learn at last from Origen himself, 
274 whom by mistake he praises and admires above all others, as 
of the same opinion as Arius, his own ignorance, in openly 
averring* that he cannot be persuaded that the Son of God 

2 inigra- came down unto the earth without moving 2 from place to 

place, so as that even then, when having been made man 
He was sojourning among men, He was present in heaven, 

ov yap o?5e Svvajjiiv ov, Kal on ebs Kal avrbs &v, tpxyrai trpbs r/i 

Trvevfj.a Kvpiov TreTrATjpco/ce r^v ot/cou/ue- OVK e|eSpos yiverai, ouSe /caraAeiTret 

vriv, Kal rb ovv^ov ra irdvra. yviaaiv tavrov fSpav &s nva /*ej> r6irov K 

6%6t (p(ai/r]s oiSe ffvvi&ou Swarai rb, avrov tlvai, trtpoi> Se TrA^prj, ov Trp6r- 

^X riv ovpavbv Kal rr)v yr)v e ycb irXi}- pov avrbv X OVTa - eViS?LueT Se Swapis 

pea ; \eyei Kvpios. ov5f /3AeVei OTI Kara Kal 6f6rr)S eou St 5 ou ^ouAerai, Kal zv 

rov Xpiariavcav \6yov otTrdi/res tv avrcp (f eupicr/cei xwpav, OVK$ovros r6-rrov, 

ev, Kal Kivov/uieQa, Kai ecr/xey els Kal ouS eKAeiVoi Tos x^pay avrov Kfvrjv, 

>\os eV rfj Trpbs AO-^vaiovs Si^Tfjyo- Kal a\\t]v ir\t]povvros. p. 164. [ 5. 

e Si Sae. KO.V 6 0ebs roivvv rSiv p. 504.] 

<v rfj eavrov Swa/xet o-vyKara0aivr) s See p. 168 170, 324, 325. [p. 

I?7<n>D^i 5 s rbv ruv avQpwTruv friov, 509511,686, 687.] 
6 eV ap x rj Trpbs rbv ebi> \6yos, l Append, ad Nucl. H.E., p. 99. 

reply to Celsus on the supposed inferiority of the Son. 613 

and so every where ; and, moreover, in condemning such a BOOK iv. 
doctrine as impious and blasphemous. For the holy man V^ i" 
pronounces him, in the person of the epicurean Celsus, to ORIG EN. 
be altogether ignorant of the Divine power. 

11. I will subjoin the following by way of addition. From 
the modes of expression used by Christian writers who have 
taught, that the appearances of God recorded in the Old 
Testament are by no means to be understood of the Father, 
inasmuch as He can be seen of no man, but are to be re 
ferred to the Son; and that Incarnation was befitting the 
Son, not the Father ; from these expressions, I say, wrongly 
understood, it is very probable that Celsus seized on a handle [751] 
for objecting against the Christians, that they taught that 
God the Father, being Himself great and hard to be contem 
plated, sent His Son unto men, as being easy to be contem 
plated ; as we have already observed in the preceding chap 
ter out of Origen s treatise against Celsus, book vi. u , where 
we also gave Origen s reply in part; The remaining portion is 
most apposite, in this place ; for thus he goes on to say in the 
same passage, "Be it [allowed], then, that God is hard to be 
contemplated; but yet not He alone is so, but His only- 
begotten Son likewise. For God the Word is hard to be 
contemplated, and in like manner is Wisdom also, in which 
God created all things. For who is able to contemplate, in 
each particular of the universe 1 , that Wisdom in which 2 God } T&V irdv- 
made even each particular of the universe ? It is not, there 
fore, because God [is Himself] hard to be contemplated, 
that He sent God the Son as easy to be contemplated, as 
Celsus not understanding has said, speaking as in our per 
son. But, as we have stated, the Son, being also hard to be 
contemplated, as being God the Word, through whom all 
things were made, also dwelt among us." In this passage 
again Origen professes, in the name of all catholic Chris 
tians, that the Father did not send the Son into the 

u etrrco 5^/ Kal SvvOedprjTos 6 &f6s. Ofdopr/ffai ; ov Sici rb SvaOecapyTos ovv 6 

etAA ov /J.OVOS 5va6ewpr)TOS eVri nvi, &fbs eTi/at, ws evOecaprjTOV rbv 0e2>i> r"6v 

aAAo Kal 6 /j-ovoyev^s avrov. SvffOeca- vlbv eTreyUiJ/ci/* airep /J.TJ voliaas 6 KeAtros 

prjros yap 6 Qebs \dyos, SvaOecaprjTOS 8e e?7rei/ ws e/c trpoauTrov ^/xa)j/ . . . aAA 

Kal (ro(f>ia eVrti/, eV 77 TO Trdvra &s airoSfStoKa/uLf^, Kal 6 vlbs 5v(rdfojprj- 

6 Qe6s. TIS ydp Svvarai KaO ros &v, are \6yos @(b<;, 8i ov TO. -rravra 

TT\V ffO<f)lav, fi> p o tyevero, Kal tfftiT]v<a(TV eV T^utV. p. 

6, 32-3. [ 6U. p. 685.] 



614 Wisdom, why the Son and ivhy the Spirit is so named. 


" P52] 
1 ortus. 

2 efficien- 
tiae pro- 

3 metony- 


4 cognitio 

5 peculia- 

world as being more easy to be contemplated than Him 
self; seeing that Both are alike incomprehensible, as he 
taught in other passages also x . Why then [was the Son 
sent] ? We have given the cause and reason repeatedly in 
this chapter; namely, that God the Father, as being sprung 1 
of none, could have been sent of none ; whereas it was not 
unbecoming the Son of God, as being begotten of the Father, 
to be sent by Him. It should, however, be observe^ in 
passing, for the information of such readers as are not much 
versed in the writings of the ancient fathers, that, in 
those words, " Wisdom is also hard to be contemplated," by 
Wisdom the Holy Ghost is designated, as we have already y 
shewn was done by Theophilus of Antioch and Irenseus. Of 
the causes why those ancient writers so expressed themselves 
Petavius writes thus 2 ; "We must reckon," he says, "that 
they called the Holy Ghost Wisdom, because from Him the 
gift of wisdom is diffused amongst angels and men ; just as the 
Logos is said by some to have been so called, because, as we 
have shewn in a former book, He makes men rational, Xoyt- 
Thus, inasmuch as that excellent and heavenly gift of 


wisdom so far forth as it is a gift, and is imparted to us 
by God of His singular bounty and charity belongs pecu 
liarly to the effectual working 2 of the Holy Ghost; on this 
account the fountain Itself of wisdom, as well as of all other 
gifts, is sometimes, by a transferred use of the word 3 , called 
by that same name [Wisdom] . There may be other reasons 
also for that appellation, as, for instance, because wisdom, 
which is the gift of God, and is opposed to human wisdom, 
such as was that of the Gentile philosophers, is (as St. Thomas 
explains it) joined with the love of God and charity. Where 
fore the Holy Ghost is named Wisdom on the same ground 
as [He is named] Love and Charity. But if you consider 
the nature itself and the peculiar properties of wisdom, as it 
relates to the intellect and is a kind of knowledge 4 , it is an 
appellation peculiarly belonging to 5 the Son and Word of 
God; and to the Spirit not otherwise than extrinsically, 
and, so to speak, causatively." And, further, this also will 
perhaps deserve our notice, that those words of Origen, 

x See ii. 9. 9. [p. 302.] 225.] 

y See ii. 4. 10, and 5. 7. [p. 202 and * De Trin. vii. 12. 16. 

The Post-Nicene Fathers agreed with these views. 615 

" God is hard to be contemplated *, the Word is hard to BOOK iv. 
be contemplated, and in like manner Wisdom also is hard ^J* /^ 
to be contemplated/ are quite parallel to those clauses QRIGEN 
of what is commonly called the Athanasian Creed ; " The i s v(r ee6- 
Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and w 5 - 
the Holy Ghost incomprehensible." But I return to my 

12. From all this it is most manifest, that, whenever those 
doctors of the Church who wrote before the rise of the Arian 
heresy, argue 2 , that it was not God the Father, but the Son, 2 ratioci- 
who appeared under the Old Testament, and in the fulness nantur - 
of time became incarnate, on the ground that the Father 
is immeasurable, and is not included in space, and is in 
visible, so that He can be seen of none ; they by no means 
meant to deny that the Son of God, equally with the 
Father, is in His own nature immeasurable and invisible; 
but merely intimated this, that all such appearances of 275 
God, and also the incarnation itself, had reference to the 
economy which the Son of God undertook ; which economy 
is by no means suited 3 to the Father a , inasmuch as He had 3 conveniat. 
not His origin from any beginning, and is indebted for His 
authorship to none 4 . And that in this point most of the 4 nu iiique 
catholic fathers, who lived after the council of Nice, agreed juctonta- 

* . tern suum 

with them, we will now proceed to shew. That Eusebius was acceptam 

catholic, and removed 5 from the Arian heresy, we have be- [ e f. 1 ** 1 

. 5 alienum. 

fore proved 1 by the clearest evidences quoted from his own 

writings. Now in the first book, chap, ii., of his Ecclesias 
tical History, (a work which it is clear that he published after 
all his other writings, and so after the Nicene council,) he [754] 
offers this argument in proof that the Angel, who was wor 
shipped by Abraham as the God and Judge of all, was not 
the Father but the Son c ; "If all reason refuse to allow that 
the unbegotten and unchangeable essence of the Almighty 
God should change into the form of man 6 , or, again 7 , should 
deceive the eyes of the beholders with the [mere] semblance 7 
of any created being 8 , or yet that the Scripture should falsely s 

R [The reader will find more on this c et ycLp ^uTjSels firiTpfirot \6yos, rifjv 

point in the reply to G. Clerke, 24.] ayevvijTov Kal &Tpeirrov ovaiav &fov 

b See hook iii. 9. 11. [p. 503] and TOV iravTOKpaTopos els aj>5pos e?5os /u.e- 

chap. 1. 10 of this book, [p. 570.] rajSaAAeif, ,11178 ay yfvvt]Tov /UTjSei/bs 

616 Eusebius; on the Father being incapable of Incarnation ; 





3 [prsesen- 
tia sua, 
added in 
Lat. vers.] 

invent such things; who else (if it be not allowable to say 
that it was the First Cause of all things) could be declared 
to be the God and Lord, who judgeth the whole earth, and 
being seen in human form doeth judgment, but His pre- 
existent Word alone ?" Eusebius had used the same reason 
ing in the fifth book of his Evangelical Demonstration, p. 147; 
yet on account of these and similar expressions the Jesuit 
Petavius d has not hesitated to call this venerable bishop, wjio 
has deserved most highly of the Church of Christ, "impious" 
and " profane." He, however, could scarcely have been igno 
rant, that Eusebius in nowise meant, what his words at first 
seem to carry on the face of them, that the Son of God, who 
formerly appeared in a visible shape, was in very deed of a 
nature alien from the Father, that is, [of a nature] finite 
and mutable, much less that He underwent any actual change 
through these appearances. For in a hundred passages (one 
of which Petavius has himself adduced) Eusebius most ex 
plicitly rejected that blasphemy ; indeed, in his Panegyric on 
Constantine, which is appended to his Ecclesiastical History, 
he expressly teaches that the Word of God, even after He 
had taken true manhood into the unity of His Person, con 
tinued the same unchangeable, immeasurable, and omni 
present God ; for thus he writes in the fourteenth chapter 
of the said Oration 6 ; "And herein did He minister to the 
Father s counsels, Himself on the other hand l continuing 
immaterial, such as before this He had been with the Father ; 
not having changed His substance at all, nor having His own 
nature annihilated 2 ; not yet having been confined by the 
bonds of the flesh; nor, again, making His sojourn there 
[only], where the human vessel [of His flesh] was, and hin 
dered from being in other places of the universe ; for, on 
the contrary, even at the very time that He was sojourning 
among men, He was filling all things [with His presence 3 ,] 

<j>av7 atria ras T&V dpcavrcav utyeis e|a7ro- 
rav ^.TjSe jW?}i/ tyevSus ra roiavra TT\O.T- 
reo-flai TTJI/ ypatp^V 0e5s Kal Kvpios 6 
Kpivtav -rracrav T-r\v yTJv, Kal TTOI&V Kpiaiv 
eV avQpcairov 6p(f>/j.evos (rxirj/iaTt, T LS Uv 
frepvs avayopevoiTo, (ei pr) (pdvai Of/ 
rb irp>Tov T&V C 6\cav ctfnov,) 3) jj.6vos 6 
avrov \6yos. [H. E. i. 2. p. 6.] 
De Trin. viii. 2. 6. p. 792. 

e Kal ravra rcus TrarpiKcus /3ov\eus 
SnrjKOVf iTO, /j.Vb)v avrbs ird,\iv &v\os, 
olos Kal irpb TOVTOV irapa T< Tlarpl i\v 
ov TI /j.fTa!3a\cav T-TJV oixriav ou5 atpa- 
viff6ia"r)s TTJS avrov 
ro ts TTJS aapK^s Secr/J.o is 
55e [lev, j/9a i\v avQpunrfiov ffKevos, ras 
Siarpifias TTOIOV/JL^VOS, eV erepois 8e flvai 
Toi> Travros Ke/cwAvyUeVos a\\d "yap Kal 

implied no inferiority of nature in the Son. St. Cyril H. 617 
and was with the Father, and was also 1 in Him; and at BOOK iv. 


that very time He was taking care of all things at once 2 , 12,13. 
both things in heaven and things on earth, being by no i K a j . . . 76 . 
means, like ourselves, excluded from being present every- 2 
where :" and a little afterwards he says ; " He was not then 
defiled 3 when His body was brought forth ; nor did the 3 

Impassible suffer in His essence when on the other hand [7561 

His mortal body was torn asunder." What statement was 

ever made more catholic than this ? It is, then, beyond all 

doubt, that Eusebius in the passages before cited (unless, 

indeed, with Petavius, we choose and far be this from us 

to call this most learned man a person devoid of acuteness 4 ) 4 hominem 

meant nothing else than what the fathers before him did, 

whose opinion we have been explaining ; namely, that to God 

the Father, as being unbegotten, the economy was by no 

means suitable; nor that He should appear as if He were 

sent by another, or under assumed forms ; although it was 

not unseemly for the Son of God to have undertaken that 

very economy at the will of the Father, of whom 5 He was 5 a quo. 

begotten ; and that on this account not the Father, but the 

Son had shewn Himself aforetime to the patriarchs in the 

form of man; just as, also, in the last times, not th3 Father, 

but the Son took true manhood into the unity of His Person. 

But let us proceed from Eusebius to other fathers, whom all 

allow to have been catholic. 

13. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his fourteenth Catechetical 276 
Lecture, supposes that it was the Son whom Isaiah beheld CYRIL H - 
sitting on the throne, "For no man," he says f , "hath seen 
the Father at any time ; He who at that time appeared to 
the prophet was the Son." Basil, in the second book of his 
Treatise against Eunomius, proves that it was the Son who 
appeared to Moses in the bush, from this, that it is written, 
that " the Angel of the Lord appeared in the bush ;" and soon 

ft/ T<> r6re Kad t>v ei/ avQp&irois erro\i- overlay eTratrxf <5 anra()r}s, TOV dvrjrov 

revero, TO, irai/TO. ir\r]pov, Kal rep TIctTpl ird\iv avTcp Siatpov^eVou. Orat. de 

ffvvrtv, Kal eV aur 76 jjv /cat rS>v TrdV- Laud. Constant., p. 650. edit. Valesii. 

T(av a9p6(as sv rq3 Tore, rwv re war* ov- [p. 761.] 

pavbv KOI T&V firl yys eTre^eAero ouSa- l rbv irarfpa n\v yoLp ouSeis 

fjL&s rrjs Travrax^o e Trapovcrias 6/j.oius Train-ore 6 5e rep TrpocprjTr) r^re 

yijuv a.TroK\ei6jj.i os. . . . OVK uvv e/j.o\v- vlbs ^v. [ 27. p. 219. ] 

P6TO Tl/CTOjUeVoi/ TOU (TU>(J.CtTOS Ou5t T^I/ 

618 Statements of St. Basil and Theodoret. 

ON THE after that the Angel Himself said, "I am the I AM," &c. 

NATION !* For from this he argues as follows^; "Who then is He who 

THE SON. i s a t the same time an Angel and God ? Is it not He of 
[757] whom we have learnt that His name is called the Angel of 
great counsel ?" For no doubt Basil thought, as those an 
cients whom I have mentioned above, that the name God is 
equally suited to the Father and to the Son, but not so the 
appellation Angel; this being peculiar to the Son, who in 
each age has been sent from the Father to reveal His will 
to men. And presently after in the same passage Basil 
thus concludes 11 ; "It is, then, evident to every one that 
where the same Person is called both Angel and God, 
the Only-begotten is plainly meant; who manifests Him 
self in each generation to mankind, and announces the will 
of the Father to His saints." Theodoret also, in his fifth 
book against Heresies, chap. 1, affirms that the Father is 
alike invisible, and shews that He neither hath been, nor 
can be seen. And in his fifth question on Exodus he con 
tends that the Angel, who appeared to Moses in the bush, 
and said that He was God, was not the Father, who can 
not be the messenger of any, but the Son ; not an inferior 

1 adminis- minister 1 or servant 2 (virovpyov). 

* er 14. Of the Latin fathers we produce the following wit 

nesses. Hilary, a most holy man and most keen opponent 
of the Arian heresy, states the same doctrine throughout 
his works, and most explicitly. For in book iv. on the 
Trinity 1 , he proves that the Angel, who stood by Hagar, was 
the Son of God, from the fact that the same Person is called 
as well God and Lord, as Angel of God ; but that to none, ex 
cept the Son of God, can both these names properly be given ; 
for He alone is both, in His own nature, very God, and, in 
respect of office and dispensation, the Angel of God, that is, 
the announcer of the Father s will; a function which is not 
[758] unbecoming His dignity, inasmuch as He Himself has His 

is o$v 6 avrbs Kal &yy\os Kal h iravrl ofiv 9)\ov, %TI svQa. Kal ay- 

; apa oi>x irfpl ov /jLffjLa6~f)Kafj.ev, ye\os Kal ebs 6 air5s irpo(rr)y6pevTai, 

OTI /caAeircu T& uvop.a avrov, fj.yd\r]s 6 /Aovoyevys eVrt S^Aot^uevos, f^avi- 

/Soi/A?}? ayy\os. p. 742 of the Paris a>v favrbv Kara ytvfav roTs avQp&irois, 

edition of 1638, [ 18. vol. i. p. Kal rb 8 f \Tjfia rov Harpls roTy aytots 

253.] eat/ToC SiayycXXcuv. [p. 254.] 

St. Hilary on the Son, not the Father, becoming visible. 619 

origin from the Father. For in that passage,, amongst other BOOK iv. 
things, he writes as follows 1 ; " He who is called the Angel vf/ jJJ 
of God is also Lord and God. But, according to the pro- HILARY. 
phet, the Son of God is the Angel of great counsel/ That 
the distinction of Persons might be complete, He is called 
the Angel of God; for He who is God of God, is Him 
self also the Angel of God. However, that due honour 
might be given Him, He is declared to be both Lord and 
God." Accordingly, towards the end of the same book, he 
contends that the Son alone has been seen of men, that the 
Father is invisible; for commenting on a passage of Jere 
miah^ he thus writes in that place 1 ; "You therefore have 
GOD seen on earth, and conversing among men. And I 
ask, how you think that must be understood, No man hath 
seen God at any time, save the Only-begotten Son who is in 
the bosom of the Father/ when Jeremiah speaks of a God, 
who was both seen on earth, and conversed among men? 
The Father certainly is not visible, save to the Son only. 
Who then is He, who was seen and conversed among men 1 ? ji nt ?r 
Surely it is our God, God both visible in manhood 2 , and 2 i n ho _ 
capable of being handled 3 ." Then afterwards he adds, " He mine. 
was seen on earth, and conversed among men/ For there is jJ^JV j -, 
one Mediator between God and man, [being both] God and 
rnan; a mediator both in the giving of the law 4 , and in the 4 legisla- 
taking unto Himself of a body. \_ And therefore no other is r Bamcn 
accounted of in comparison of Him/] For He alone was be- iii- 35.] 
gotten of God, so as to be God 5 , through whom all things 5 in Deum. 
in heaven and on earth were created, through whom the 

1 Qui Angelus Dei dictus est, idem mes, Deum nemo vidit unquam, nisi uni- 

Dominus et Deus est. Est autem se- genitus Films, qui est in sinu Patris ; 

cundum Prophetam Filius Dei magni cum Hieremias Deum prsedicet, qui 

consilii dngelus. Ut personarum dis- et visus et terris est, et inter homines 

tinctio absoluta esset, Angelus Dei est conversatus est? Pater certe non nisi 

nuncupatus ; qui enim est Deus ex soli Filio visibilis est. Quis ergo iste 

Deo, ipse est et Angelus Dei. Ut vero est, qui est visus et conversatus inter 

honor dehitus redderetur, et Dominus homines? Deus certe noster est, et 

et Deus est praedicatus. [ 23. p. visibilis in homine, et contrectabilis 

841.] Deus. . . . Super terrain visus est, et in- 

k [That is of Baruch, iii. 34 36, ter homines conversatus est. Unus est 

which was attached to the end of Jere- enim Mediator Dei et hominum, Deus 

miah in the Septuagint and ancient et homo ; et in legislatione, et in cor- 

Latin version.] poris assumptione Mediator. \_Aliusigi- 

1 Habes ergo DEUM in terra visum, tur ad eum non dcputatur.^ Unus est 

et inter homines conversatum. Et re- enim hie in Deum ex Deo natus, per 

quiro, quomodo intelligendum existi- quern creata sunt omnia in coalo et in 

620 St. Hilary ; on the Son appearing as an Angel 

ON THE times and the worlds were made. For whatsoever is, sub-* 
NATON > OF sists wholly of His operation. He therefore is one, making 
THE SON, covenant with 1 Abraham, speaking to Moses, witnessing to 
1 disponens I SYSL Q\ } abiding in the prophets, born through the Virgin 
of the Holy Ghost/ &c. Here, in passing, we must note, 
in direct opposition to Bellarmine and other papists, that 
Hilary expressly affirms (as it is clear that the ancients 
[759] taught in common) that our Saviour was a Mediator evW 
in the giving of the Law, and previous to the Incarnation ; 
and, therefore, is not a Mediator merely in respect of His 
human nature, seeing that He had not as yet assumed it; 
and yet this is what they have earnestly maintained. But, 
in his fifth book 1 , the same Hilary, speaking again of the 
Angel, who appeared to Hagar, says; "An Angel of God 
speaks to Hagar, and that same Angel is God. But per 
haps He is not true God, seeing that He is the Angel of 
God ; for this name seems to belong to an inferior nature ; 
and where the name given is that which belongs to a dif- 
2 nuncupa- ferent kind 2 , in that case it is supposed that the truth of the 
nerisalfeni. sam e kind is not. And indeed our former book has already 
277 shewn the emptiness of this question; for in [the name] 
Angel there is the idea of office suggested, rather than that 
of nature." And after a few intervening words [he adds,] 
" The law, therefore, or rather God through the law, wishing 
to intimate the personality of [scil. expressed by] the name 
3[B P . Bull of Father, spoke of God the Son 3 as the Angel of God, that 
Soi?of the * s ; tne Messenger of God. For in [the name] Messenger 
God."] He witnesses the intimation of His office; and, on the other 
hand, he established the truth of His nature in the Name, 
when He called Him God. But this is now an order of dis- 
4 generis, pensation, not of kind 4 ; for we set forth nothing else than 

terra, per quern tempora et ssecula tas ejusdem generis non inesse. Et 
facta sunt. Totum enim quicquid est, quidem jam superior liber inanitatem 
ex ejus operatione subsistit. Hie ergo hujus quaestionis ostendit; in Angelo 
umis est, disponens ad Abraham, lo- enim officii potius quam naturae intel- 
quens ad Mosen, testans ad Israel, ma- ligentia est. . . . Volens igitur lex, imo 
nens in prophetis, per virginem natus per legem Deus, personam paterni no- 
ex Spiritu Sancto, &c. [ 42. p. 852.] minis intimate, Deum [Dei, Bull] 
1 Angelus Dei ad Agar loquitur, et Filium Angelum Dei loquuta est, id 
idem Angelus Deus est. Sed forte id- est, nuntium Dei. Significationem 
circo non Deus verus est, quia Ange- enim officii testatur in nuntio; naturae 
lus Dei est; inferioris enim naturae autem veritatem confirrnavit in nomi- 
videtur hoc notneii ; et ubi nuncupatio ne, cum Deum dixit. Hie autem mine 
est generis alieni, ibi existimatur veri- dispensations est ordo, non generis ; 

His being seen and sent implies no inequality of nature. 621 

Father and Son ; and we do in such wise make co-equal the BOOK iv. 
nature of [scil. expressed by] the names, that the generation ?{^\^ 
of the Only-begotten God from the Unbegotten God main- HILARY. 
tains the truth of [His] Godhead. The intimation, how 
ever, of sent and sender, in this place, suggests nothing 
else than a Father and a Son ; but takes not away the 
truth of the nature, nor destroys in the Son the property 
of begotten * Godhead." Lastly, the same writer in the nativa. 
same book thus discourses concerning God, [as] seen by 
Isaiah m ; " For Isaiah saw God, and, although it is written, 
No man hath seen God at any time, save the Only-be 
gotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath 
declared Him/ yet the prophet saw God and beheld His [760] 
glory, even so as to draw on himself envy for the dignity 
vouchsafed to him as prophet 2 . For on this very account 2 usque ad 
he was by the Jews brought to trial and sentenced to death. JJj 
God, therefore, whom no man hath seen, the Only-begotten dignitate 
Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has declared :" and 
presently he says; "Prophecy speaks, the gospel testifies, 
the apostle interprets, the Church confesses, that He who 
was seen is very God, whilst yet no one admits that God 
the Father has been seen." Here he asserts that the doc 
trine, that the Father has not been seen at any time by any 
one, was in his time so catholic, that no Catholic at that day 
ventured to maintain the contrary. From Hilary I pass on 
to other doctors of the Church. 

15. Augustine himself, in chap. 9 of his treatise against AUGUS- 
Adimantus", infers from the words of John, " No man hath TI 
seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son who is in 
the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him," that " the 

non enim aliud quam Patrem et Filium propheta vidit, et gloriam ejus usque 

praedicamus ; et ita naturam nominum ad invidiam propheticae dignitatis as- 

- coaequamus, ut veritatem Dei teneat pexit. Nam in judicium mortis ob 

ex innascibili Deo Dei unigeniti nati- hanc causam a Judaeis actus est. Deuni 

vitas. Missi autem et mittentis signi- itaque nemini visum unigenitus Filius, 

ficatio hie non aliud quam Patrem et qui in sinu Patris est, enarravit; . . . 

Filium docet ; caeterum veritatem non Propbetia loquitur, evangelium testa- 

adimit naturae, neque in Filio perimit tur, apostolus interpretatur, ecclesia 

nativae divinitatis proprietatem. [v. confitetur Deum verurn esse, qui visus 

11. p. 859.] sit; cum tamen Deum Patrem visum 

m Esaias enim Deum vidit, et cum nemo fateatur. p. 58. [v. 33. p. 873.] 

scriptum sit, Deum nemo vidit unquam, n Filius, quod est Verbum Dei, non 

nisi unigenitus Filius, qui est in sinu solum novissimis temporibus, cum in 

Patris, ipse enarravit, Deum tamen carne apparere dignatus est, sed etiam 

622 St. Augustine ; whether the Father could have been visible, 

ON THE Son, who is the Word of God, made revelation respecting 
IATIOM <w t ne Father to whom He would, not only in the last times, 
THE SON - when He vouchsafed to appear in the flesh, but even before, 
from the foundation of the world, either by speaking or appear 
ing, whether through some angelic power, or through some 
creature, whoever it might be." Now this conclusion is of no 
force unless it be assumed as settled that the words of the evan 
gelist intimate, that God the Father Himself never shewed 
Himself to be seen of any one. Augustine therefore con 
tradicts himself, as he is often wont to do, and says what 
Hilary thought that no Catholic would presume to say, when 
in another place, that is, in chap. 17, book ii. of his work 
on the Trinity he affirms, " That it is too rash to say that 
God the Father never appeared through any visible forms 
to the patriarchs or to the prophets." This dictum of Augus- 
[761] tine s Petavius inconsiderately approves as certain. Under 
the New Testament, indeed, we know that God the Father has 
Himself spoken to man ; at the baptism of Christ, I mean, 
and again at His transfiguration, when He said, f This is My 
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased/ and again in those 
words, ( I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again/ 
Petavius, with the view of proving from these passages of 
Scripture the assertion of Augustine, namely, that God the 
Father Himself sometimes appeared to the prophets, reasons 
thus p , "For it is not more unworthy of the supreme and most 
excellent majesty of God, to meet in whatever way the ears of 
men, by some sensible form of sound, than to reveal Himself 
to their eyes by using for a time the likeness of a body." 
Here, instead of the words which the printer has presented to 
us " it is not more unworthy," (non enim indignius est,) the 
Jesuit, I imagine, wrote, or at any rate ought to have written, 
" for it is not more worthy," (non enim dignius est}, for other 
wise his reasoning will hang very ill together. But, I affirm, 
this is not so certain as Petavius thought. For according to 
the view of the ancients, as I have often stated, those appear 
ances of God, in a visible, bodily shape, were preludes and 

prius a constitutions mundi, cui voluit, [Ut] nimis temerarium sit dicere, 

de Patre annuntiavit, sive loquendo, Deum Patrem nunquam Patribus aut 

sive apparendo, vel per angelicam ali- prophetis per aliquas visibiles formas 

quam potestatem, vel per quamlibet apparuisse. [ 32. vol. viii. p. 791.] 
creaturam. [vol. viii. p. 120.] P [De Trin. viii. 2. 18. p. 801.] 

as He spake audibly; of the suitableness of the Son s being sent. 623 

figures of the future incarnation, which [incarnation] was BOOK iv. 
in no wav suited to the Father. But let it be certain : at CH Q A1 J r 111 


any rate, the passages quoted are not to the point, inas- 

much as Augustine, whom Petavius undertook to defend, TINE - 
expressly spoke of the manifestations of God under the Old 
Testament, those, namely, which were made of old to the 
patriarchs and the prophets. Besides, it was out of the usual 
course, and necessary, in order to confirm the mission of the 
Son from the Father, when He was now beheld on earth as 
a mere man, that God the Father Himself should then utter 
those words respecting His Son. This however by the way. 
Moreover, whereas those appearances of God under the Old 
Testament had respect to the mission of One from Another, 
or the function committed by One to Another; (whence [762] 
also He who appeared is generally styled not only God, but 
also Angel, that is, One sent ;) Augustine himself distinctly 
allows that the being sent is certainly inapplicable to God 
the Father; for in the fourth book, chap. 20 q , of his treatise 
on the Trinity, he thus writes ; " As, therefore, the Father 
begat, the Son was begotten, so the Father sent, the Son was 
sent." Again ; " As to be begotten is to the Son, to be of 
the Father; so to be sent is to the Son to be known to be of L 1 ab illo. 
Him." And at the end of this fourth book 1 he declares "that it 
would be most absurd to say that the Father is sent either by 
the Son, whom He begat, or by the Holy Ghost, who proceeds 
from Him [sc.the Son]," even though "He were pleased visibly 
to appear by means of a subject creature." But he speaks most 
clearly in his book against the doctrine of the Arians, chap. 278 
4 s ; "Of the Father alone we do not read that He is sent, 
since He alone has not an author, of whom He was begotten, 
or from whom He proceeds. And therefore not on account 
of diversity of nature, which exists not in the Trinity, but 

1 Sicut ergo Pater genuit, Filius nuit, aut a Spiritu Sancto, qui de illo 

genitus est : ita Pater misit, Filius procedit, missus diceretur. [c. xxi. 

missus est. . . . Sicut . . . natum esse 32. p. 832.] 

est Filio, a Patre esse ; ita initti est s Solus Pater non legitur missus, 

Filio, cognosci quod ab illo sit [ 29. quoniam solus non habet auctorem a 

vol. viii. p. 829.] quo genitus sit, vel a quo procedat. 

r [St. Augustine s words are; , Etiam Et ideo non propter naturae diversita- 

si voluisset Dens Pater per subjectam tern, quae in Trinitate nulla est, sed 

creaturam visibiliter apparere, absur- propter ipsarn auctoritatem solus Pa- 

dissime tamen aut a Filio, quern ge- ter non dicitur missus. Non enim 


624 When it was God, when only an Angel, that appeared. 

ON THE simply, because of origination, of the Father alone it is not 
said, that He is sent. For it is not brightness or heat that 
sends forth fire, but fire that sends forth brightness or heat." 
A passage parallel to this you may read in the third book of 
the work of the same writer, against the Arian Maxirninus, 
chap. 14*; "For," he says, "it behoved not that He who 
begat should be sent by Him whom He begat, but that the 
begotten should be sent by Him who begat Him. This how 
ever is not inequality of substance, but order of nature; 
not that the One was prior to the Other, but that the 
One was of the Other." However as regards the manifes 
tations under the Old Testament, we agree with Augustine, 
whom Petavius follows, thus far, that God was not always pre- 

1 singular!, sent in the angel by a special * presence, but wrought much 

[763] by means of angels alone. Moreover we do not deny that on 

2 modum this question some of the ancients have gone too far 2 . Be 

sides, we freely admit, that it is often difficult to conjecture 
when it was a mere angel, or when it was God that appeared 
in the angel. Furthermore, we join Petavius in embracing 
as probable the rule of Alphonsus Tostatus ; namely, that 
some events are recorded in the Scriptures, which are either 
of less importance, or relate to some one or a few persons ; 
whereas others are marked and distinguished, or pertain 
to the use of the whole people; that in the former case, 
mere angels were the ministers, and that Scripture has so 
described them, as not to give any intimation of [the presence 
of] any divine Person; but that events of the latter class 
were transacted by God, and are accordingly so described as 
to make it appear, that not a mere angel intervened, but that 
through him God did, or spoke, what it pleased Him. And 
this we hold to be the surest indication of the Divine pre 
sence, when He who appears and speaks openly professes 

3 Eum qui that He is God, or He that Is 3 , or the God of Abraham, &c., 
AM or the God of their fathers, and requires worship and the 

adoration due to God to be given Him ; which, as we know, 
was done by Him who spoke to Moses out of the bush, and 

splendor aut fervor ignem, sed ignis oportebat. Verum hsec non est inae- 

mittit sive splendorem sive fervorem. qualitas substantial, sed ordo naturae; 

[vol. viii. p. 627.] non quod alter prior esset altero, sed 

1 Non enim genitorem ab eo quern quod alter esset ex altero. [ii. 14. 8. 

genuit, sed genitum a genitore mitti vol. viii. p. 707.] 

Prudentlus and others ; the Son is visible, not the Father. 625 

to the children of Israel on Mount Sinai. At the same time 
we firmly maintain that wherever it is evident that God 
Himself, and not a mere angel, appeared, there is to be un- ~ 
derstood not the Father but the Son ; herein religiously fol 
lowing the consentient judgment of primitive antiquity. But 
to return from this digression. 

16. In addition to the testimonies which I have adduced, 
Petavius himself has furnished us with others. Prudentius, 
in his Apotheosis, most fully demonstrates against the Pa- 
tripassians, that it was the Word only who appeared to the 
ancients, not in His proper form, but under a corporeal image, 
because the Father can be seen by none. Amongst other 
things he writes 1 in this strain"; "Is God passible? whose [764] 
form and image was never seen by any, for that Majesty is not J canit. 
easy to be comprehended by thought 2 , or eyes, or hand. The 2 sensu. 
famous saying of the great St. John is an evidence, which wit 
nesses that God could not have been seen at any time." 
(ver. 6.) Again*; "What man soever is said to have seen 
God, hath seen the Son sent down 3 from [the Father] Him- 3 infusum. 
self. For the Son it is which, shining forth from the Father, 
has presented Itself to be beheld by means of forms such 
as human sight can comprehend." (ver. 22.) Afterwards he 
says that it was the Son alone who was seen by Abraham 
and Moses under a bodily form, and in no wise the Father y ; 
" Believe me, no one hath seen God, believe me, no one. God 
[who is] from the fountain [of Godhead] is visible, the very 
fountain of God [head] is not visible. He who is begotten 4 4 nascitur. 
may be discerned, but the unbegotten 5 cannot be discerned," 5 innatus. 
&c. (ver. 77.) Cassian also, in his fourth book on the Incar- 

u Passibilisne Deus ? cujus species et imago 
Nulli visa unquam, nee enim comprendier ilia 
Majestas facilis sensuve, oculisve, manuve. 
Joannis magni Celebris sententia prsesto est, 
Haud unquam testata Deum potuisse videri. Ver. 6. 

x Quisque hominum vidisse Deum memoratur, ab ipso 
Infusum vidit gnatum ; nam Filius hoc est 
Quod de Patre micans se praestitit inspiciendum 
Per species, quas posset homo comprendere visu. Ver. 22. 

y Credite, nemo Deum vidit, mihi credite, nemo. 
Visibilis de fonte Deus, non ipse Dei fons 
Visibilis. Cerni potis est qui nascitur, at non 
Innatus cerni potis est, &c. Ver. 77. 

BULL. g g 

626 " Invisible, impassible" added to " the Father Almighty 

ON THE nation, chap. 9 Z , says, " He, therefore, is One who speaks 
ATION^F un ^ ^ ne patriarchs, dwells in the prophets, was conceived 
THE SON, of the Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary/- &c. Again, " For 
surely the Father, who is said to be visible to no one except 
the Son, was not at any time either seen on earth, or put 
forth in the flesh, or conversed among men ; Certainly not." 
Lastly, Isidore, in his treatise on the Nativity of our Lord, 
chap. l a , says, "For it is the Son Himself, who on every 
occasion being sent from the Father, appeared visibly to 
men. From His very mission, therefore, He is rightly 
named Angel" Whoever desires more [testimonies] should 
consult Petavius aforesaid on the Trinity, book viii. chap. 2. 
17. I will add this one remark of my own as worthy of ob 
servation ; that anciently the very creeds of some Churches 
professed God the Father, by way of distinction 1 , to be invisible 
and impassible ; in the sense, that is, which we have explained. 
Ruffinus, at any rate, in his explanation of the Creed called 
the Apostles Creed, expressly testifies that the Creed of 
Aquileia in his time, in the article on God the Father, after 
the word " Almighty b ," had " invisible and impassible." 
Hence also, in the epistle of Auxentius, archbishop of Milan, 
in Hilary , the first article of the creed is to this day read as 
follows; te I believe in God the Father Almighty, invisible, 
impassible, immortal." Erasmus d , in his reply to the cen 
sure 2 of the divines of Paris, declares that the Churches of 
the East also had received the same addition, and this Vossius 6 
himself also thought probable. That addition, however, was 
without doubt made in opposition to the heresy which at first 
certain persons f , whose names are lost, and afterwards one 


1 Scwpm- 


z Hie ergo unus est ad patriarchas 
loquens, in prophetis manens, ex Spi- 
ritu conceptus, natus ex Virgine Maria, 
&c. . . . Nunquid enim Pater unquam, 
qui non nisi Filio tantum visibilis esse 
legitur, aut in terris visus est, aut in 
came editus, aut inter homines cori- 
versatus est? non utique. [p. 1009, 
1010. ed. 1628.] 

a Ipse est enim Filius qui semper a 
Patre missus visibiliter apparebat ho- 
minibus. Ex ipsa ergo missione recte 
Angelus nuncupatur. [p. 367.] 

b [His additur invisibili et impassi- 
bili. Sciendum quod duo isti sermones 
in ecclesiae Romanae symbolo non ha- 

bentur : constat autem apud nos ad- 
ditos, haereseos causa Sabellii, &c. c. 
5. p. cciii.] 

c Credo in ... Deum Patrem omni- 
potentem, invisibilem, impassibilem, 

immortalem [Lib. contra Auxent. 

14. p. 1270.] 

d [Declarationes ad censuras fac. 
theol. Paris, tit. xi. Decl. 36. Op., torn, 
ix. col. 869.] 

e De tribus Symbolis, p. 26. [vol. 
vi. p. 511.] 

f See Justin s Apology, ii. p. 96. 
[Apol. i. 63. p. 81.] and Dialogue with 
Trypho, p. 358. [ 128. p. 221.] 

in some Creeds. The uses of this doctrine of Subordination. 627 

Praxeas, and then Beryllus and Noetus, and lastly Sabellius, BOOK iv. 
maintained; who all taught that it was not the Son of God, xig^ /v" 
but God the Father Himself, who was seen of men under ~ 
the Old Testament, and who at last in the fulness of time 
became incarnate and suffered. And thus much on this 



1. ALTHOUGH in the foregoing chapters we have explained 
at so great length the opinions of the ancients respecting the 
subordination of the Son to the Father; yet still it remains 
that we say something of the excellent use of this doctrine, [767] 
which those same ancient writers have noticed. Let the 
following, therefore, be our third proposition, and the last of 
this concluding book : 


THIS doctrine respecting the subordination of the Son to 
the Father as to His origin and principle, was regarded by 
the ancient doctors as very useful and absolutely necessary 
to be known and believed, for this reason, that by means of 
it, especially, the divinity of the Son is so asserted, as that 
the unity of God, and the divine monarchy, is, nevertheless, 
preserved unimpaired. For although the name and the na 
ture be common to the two, namely the Father and the Son 
of God; still, inasmuch as the One is the principle of the 
Other, from which He is propagated, and that by an internal, 
not an external production, it follows that God is rightly said 
to be only One. This reason those ancients believed to be 
equally applicable to the divinity of the Holy Ghost. 

2. According to the opinion of the ancients, with which 
common reason agrees, if there were two unbegotten or self- 

628 The doctrine of the Divine Unity is hereby guarded ; 

ON THE dependent principles in the Godhead, it would follow, not 
HATION OF on ty that the Father would be deprived of His pre-eminence 1 , 

THE SON - whereby he has His divinity from Himself 2 , that is, from no 
one else, (of which point we have already treated largely ;) but 
a j sQ ^^ tnere wou id necessarily be two Gods supposed. On 
the other hand, by laying down a subordination, whereby it is 
taught that the Father alone is God from Himself, and the Son 
God of God the Father, those doctors thought that both that 
pre-eminence of the Father and the divine monarchy would 
be secured. This same they thought should be extended to 
the third Person also of the Godhead, the Holy Ghost, who, 
inasmuch as He Himself has His origin from the Father 
through the Son, they supposed in no wise to bring in a 

Tpi6e6- Tritheism 3 , or three Gods. There are many things on this 
subject most worthy of being read, which you will find in the 
fathers, those especially who wrote more fully on the doc 
trine of the Trinity. We will select some out of so great a 

3. Athenagoras, as we have already heard f , inferred that 
there is one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, 
from this, that there is one only fountain of the Godhead, 
namely, the Father, from whom the Son and the Holy Ghost 
derive each His own origin. Tertullian, however, explains 
the subject at very great length in his treatise against 
Praxeas, chap. 2 4^, where, in opposition to the Praxeans, 
who, under the pretext of the unity of God, denied all dis 
tinction of persons in the Divine Essence, he thus learnedly 
argues; " Some room must also be given for reviewing [the 
statements of the heretics], were it only that it may not seem 
that each perversion is condemned without examination, and 
prejudged; especially that [perversion] which supposes itself 
to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one can believe 
in one only God in no other way than by saying that the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the very same Per 
son. As if in this way also One were not All, in that All are 
of One, by unity, that is, of substance, whilst, nevertheless, 

f See book ii. 4. 9. [p. 153.] existimat meram veritatem possidere, 

* Dandus est etiam retractatibus lo- dum unicum Deum non alias putat 

cus ; vel ne videatur unaquaeque per- credendum, quam si ipsum eundemque 

versitas non examinata, sed praejudi- et Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanc- 

cata damnari ; niaxime haec, quae se turn dicat. Quasi non sic quoque tin us 

the Monar cliia does not exclude plurality of Persons. 629 

the mystery of the economy is guarded, which distributes the BOOK iv. 
Unity into a Trinity/ Then a little afterwards, he thus goes C "2 P 3 1V 
on ; " They now give it out that we preach two and three TERTUL 
[Gods] ; and assume that they themselves are worshippers MAN. 
of the one God ; as if it were not the case, both that an unity 
brought together 1 contrary to reason makes heresy, and that * coliecta. 
a Trinity drawn out 2 in conformity with reason constitutes 2 expensa. 
the truth. We hold the monarchia* , say they. And so ar- 3 ^, 
ticulately 4 do even Latins, even the ignorant 11 "*, enunciate the 4 VOC aiiter. 
sound, that you would suppose they understood monarchia *Seep.63i. 
as well as they pronounce it. But monarchia Latins take [769] 
pains to pronounce : ceconomia even Greeks are unwilling to 
understand. But for myself, if I have gleaned any know 
ledge 5 of either language, I know that monarchia means no- 5 prae- 
thing else than single and individual rule 6 ; yet still that g e y psl 
monarchy does not on that account, because it is [the rule] et unicum 
of one, preclude him whose [rule] it is, either from having imper 
a son, or from having made himself a son to himself, or from 
administering his own monarchy by whomsoever] he will. 
Nay more, I say that no dominion is in such sense that of 
one, as his own 7 , in such sense single, in such sense a mo- 7 ita unius 
narchy, as not also to be administered through other persons Sl] 
most near [to it], whom itself has looked out for as officials 
to itself. Moreover, if he, whose the monarchy is, have a 
son, it does not forthwith become divided and cease to be a 
monarchy, if the son also be taken as a sharer in it ; but it 
is on this account 8 in its original 9 his, from whom it is com- 8 proinde. 
municated unto the son ; and so long as it is his. it is on this 9 F inci - 


account a monarchy, in that it is held together by two who 

sit omnia, dum ex uno omnia, per sub- cerpsi, i*.ova.p\(a.v nihil aliud significare 

stantiae scilicet unitatem ; et nihilomi- scio, quam singulare et unicum itnpe- 

nus custodiatur obcovOftieu sacrameu- rium ; non tamen praescribere monar- 

tum, quae Unitatem in Trinitatem dis- chiam, ideo quia unius sit, eum cujus 

ponit. . . . Duos et tres jam jactitant sit aut filium non habere, aut ipsum 

a nobis praedicari ; se vero unius Dei se sibi filium fecisse, aut monarchiam 

cultores praesumunt ; quasi non et uni- suam non per quos velit administrare. 

tas irrationaliter coliecta haeresim fa- Atqui nullam dico dominationem ita 

ciat, et Trinitas rationaliter expensa unius sui esse, ita singularem, ita mo- 

veritatem constituat. M.ovapx(a.v, in- narchiam, ut non etiam per alias proxi- 

quiunt, tenemus. Et ita sonum voca- mas personas administrator, quas ipsa 

liter exprimunt etiam Latini, etiam prospexerit officiates sibi. Si vero et 

opici, ut putes illos tam bene intelli- filius fuerit ei, cujus monarcbia sit, non 

gere p.ovapxio.v quam enuntiant. Sed statim dividi earn, et monarcbiam esse 

Hovapx ia-v sonare student Latini ; olxo- desinere, si particeps ejus adsumatur 

voniav intelligere nolunt etiam Graeci. et filius; sed proinde illius esse prin- 

At ego, si quid utriusque linguae prae- cipaliter, a quo communicatur in filium; 

630 The Trinity not inconsistent with the Unity. 


1 tarn 

2 [Dan. 
vii. 10.] 

3 dispersio- 

4 tarn con- 

6 censum. 


7 de fide 1 

are so individual 1 . Therefore if the Divine monarchy also is ad 
ministered by so many legions and hosts of angels, according 
as it is written, Thousand thousands ministered unto Him, 
and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him 2 / 
and it hath not on this account ceased to be [the rule] of One, 
so as to be no longer a monarchy, because it is administered 
by so many thousands of powers ; how is it that God should 
be thought to suffer division and severance 3 in the Son and 
in the Holy Ghost, to whom are assigned the second and the 
third places, being so participant 4 in the substance of the 
Father, which [division and severance] He suffers not in the 
multitude of so many angels, and those, too, so alien from the 
substance of the Father? The members, and the pledges 5 , 
and the instruments, and the very power, and entire system 6 
of a monarchy, you deem to be its overthrow; in this you 
err. I would you would exercise yourself on the sense of the 
thing, rather than on the sound of the word. For that you 
are to understand to be the overthrow of a monarchy, when 
another dominion that has a frame- work of its own, and a state 
peculiar to itself, and is thereby a rival, is brought in over and 
above it; when some other God is introduced in opposition to 
the Creator ; then is it ill done, when more [gods than one 
are set up] after the manner of the Yalentini and Prodici ; 
then it goes to the overthrow of the monarchy, when it goes 
to the destruction of the Creator. But I, who derive the Son 
from no other source, but from the Father s substance, [and 
represent Him] as doing nothing without the Father s will, 
having received all power from the Father; how can I be 
doing away with the monarchy from the faith 7 , when I pre- 

et dum illius est, proinde monarchiam 
esse, quae a duobus tarn unicis conti- 
netur. Igitur si et monarchia divina 
per tot legiones et exercitus angelorum 
administrator, sicut scriptum est, Mil 
lies millia adsistebant ei, et cen- 
tena millia apparebant ei ; nee ideo 
unius esse desiit, ut desinat monarchia 
esse, quia per tanta millia virtututn 
procuratur ; quale est ut Deus divisio- 
nem et dispersionem pati videatur in 
Filio et in Spiritu Sancto, secundum 
et tertium sortitis locum, tarn con- 
sortibus substantiae Patris, quas non 
patitur in tot angelorum nutnero, et 
quidem tam alienorum a substantia (aL 
tarn a substantia alienis} Patris? Mem 

bra, et pignora, et instrumenta, et ip- 
sam vim, ac totuin censum monarchies, 
eversionem deputas ejus ; non recte. 
Malo te ad sensum rei, quam ad sonum 
vocabuli exerceas. Eversio enim mo- 
narchiae ilia est tibi intelligenda, quum 
alia dominatio suae conditionis et pro- 
prii status, ac per hoc aemula superdu- 
citur ; quum alius Deus infertur ad- 
versus Creatorem ; tune male, quum 
plures, secundum Valentines et Pro- 
dicos ; tune in monarchic eversionem, 
quum in Creatoris destructionem. Cae- 
terum qui Filium non aliunde deduce, 
sed de substantia Patris, nihil facien- 
tem sine Patris voluntate, omnem a 
Patre consecutum potestatem ; quo- 

The Unity preserved by the oneness of origin. 631 

serve it in the Son, delivered unto the Son of the Father ? BOOK iv. 
The same I would also wish said with respect to the third de- 
gree l ; because I believe the Spirit [to proceed] from no other 

source than from the Father through the Son. Look to it, LIAN - 
therefore, lest it be you rather who are doing away with the radum - 
monarchy, when you overthrow the disposition and dispensa 
tion of It, which is established in so many Names 2 , as it hath 2 nomini- 
pleased God." Thus far Tertullian with very great learning. us 

4. Similar statements are found in Novatian s treatise on NOVATIAN. 
the Trinity, chap. 31 { , where he writes thus respecting God 
the Father and the Son ; " God indeed proceeding from God, 
making a second Person; but not taking away from the 
Father this, that He is one God. For if He had not been 
originate 3 , being unoriginate, on being compared with Him 3 natus. 
who is unoriginate, an equality being declared in each, He 
would have made two unoriginate ; and on that account He 
would have made two Gods, if He had not been begotten, 
on being compared with Him who was not begotten ; and 
having been found equal, they would with good reason have 
made two Gods, being not begotten, and therefore Christ 
would have made two Gods, if He had been found, like the 
Father, to be without original, and, like the Father, Himself 
the principle of all things; by making two principles, He 
would by consequence have shewn to us two Gods also." 
Then a little after he adds ; " But now, whatever He is, He 
is not of Himself; because He is not unbegotten; but He 
is of the Father, because He is begotten; whether in that 
He is Word, or in that He is Power, or in that He is [771 J 

modo possum de fide destruere monar- natus, comparatus cum eo qui esset in- 

chiam, quam a Patre Filio traditam in natus, sequatione in utroque ostensa, 

Filio servo ? Hoc mihi et in tertium duos faceret innatos ; et ideo duos face- 

gradum dictum sit ; quia Spiritum non ret Deos, si non genitus esset, colla- 

aliunde puto, quam a Patre per Filium. tus cum eo qui genitus non esset; et 

Vide ergo, ne tu potius monarchiam aequales inventi duos Deos merito red- 

destruas, qui dispositionem et dispen- didissent non geniti, atque ideo duos 

sationem ejus evertis, in tot nominibus Cliristus reddidisset Deos, si sine ori- 

constitutam, in quot Deus voluit. [p. gine esset, ut Pater, inventus, et ipse 

501-2.] principium omnium, ut Pater; duo 

h [Opici;] that is rustic, uncivilized, iaciens principia, duos ostendisset no- 

barbarous people, who also speak a bar- bis consequenter et Deos.... Nunc 

barous language. The true ground of autem quidquid est, non ex se est, quia 

the meaning is that the Opici (who are nee innatus est; sed ex Patre est, quia 

the Osci) were of old a rude and un- genitus est ; sive dum Verbum est, 

civilized people of Campania. sive dum virtus est, sive dum sapientia 

Deus utique procedens ex Deo,se- est s sive dum lux est, sive dum Filius 

cundam personam efficiens ; sed non est; et quicquid horum est, dum non 

eripiens illud Patri, quod unus est aliunde est, quam, sicut diximus jam 

Deus. Si enim natus non fuisset, in- superius, ex Patre, Patri suo originem 

632 The Unity guarded by the doctrine of derivation. 


1 nascendo. 

3 porrecta. 

4 gradatim 



6 de. 

7 ex. 

Wisdom, or in that He is Light, or in that He is Son ; 
and whatever of these He is, in that He is from no other 
source than, as we have already said, from the Father, owing 
His origin to His Father, He could not produce any discord 
in the Godhead about the number of two Gods, inasmuch 
as, by being sprung * [from Him] He derived His origin from 
[Him who is] one God. In which way, since He is both Ouly- 
begotten, and First-begotten of Him who has no original, one 
[Person 2 ] is both the principle and the head of all things." 
And then near the end of the book he thus expresses him 
self; " The Son, indeed, is shewn to be God, to whom 
divinity is seen to be delivered and communicated 3 ; and yet, 
nevertheless, the Father is proved to be one God., inasmuch 
as, in due order, by reciprocal course 4 , that majesty and 
divinity [which had been given to the Son], being again 
sent out from the Son Himself, reverts and is returned to 
the Father, who had given it [to Him.]" 

5. We have elsewhere adduced Hippolytus k , arguing thus 
in his treatise against Noetus ; " When I say that He is an 
other," (that is, the Son from the Father,) " I do not say that 
there are two Gods, but [I say that He is another] as light 
from light, or as water from a fountain, or as a ray from the 
sun. For the Power from the Whole is one ; the Whole, how 
ever, is the Father, the Power from whom is the Word." In 
that place I observed that Hippolytus proves that the Father 
and the Son, though distinct in person, are yet one God, by 
this argument, that the Son is not God of 5 Himself, but God 
of 6 God, and that He comes forth from 7 the Father, as light 
from light, and water from the fountain, and the ray from the 
sun. Lastly, (to omit very many others, whom I could cite,) 
Origen 1 on the Epistle to the Romans ix. 5, has this note; 
" Of them, therefore, is Christ also according to the flesh, 
who is over all, God blessed for ever. That Christ is one 

suam debens, discordiam divinitatis de 
nuinero duorum Deorum facere non 
potuit, qui ex uno Deo (al. qui ex 
illo qui est unus Deus} originem nas 
cendo contraxit. Quo genere dum et 
unigenitus est, et primogenitus ex illo 
est qui originem non habet, unus est 
omnium rerum et principium et caput. 
. . . Deus quidem ostenditur Filius, cui 
divinitas tradita et porrecta conspici- 
tur ; et tamen nihilominus unus Deus 

Pater probatur, dum gradatim reci 
proco meatu ilia majestas atque divi 
nitas ad Patrem, qui dederat earn, rur- 
sum ab illo ipso FiJia missa revertitur, 
et retorquetur. [p. 729.] 

k Book ii. ch. 8. 5. [p. 214.] 
1 Ex ipsis ergo est et Christus se- 
cundum carncm, qui est super omnia 
Deus benedictus in stecula. Christum 
aliud secundum carnem esse, et aliud 
secundum Spiritum, jam et in priori- 

The Divinity of the Son consistent with the Divine Unity. 633 

thing according to the flesh and another according to the BOOK iv. 
Spirit, he has already intimated in the former parts also of 4 P 5 1V 
this epistle, where he says, Who was made of the seed of 

David according to the flesh; who was ordained 1 the Son of [772] 
God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness/ And l destina- 
how He is the Son of God according to the Spirit, and the j^^t* 
Son of David according to the flesh, we there more fully ex- Rom - * 
plained to the best of our power. Him, therefore, whom he 
there called the Son of God according to the Spirit, here, as 
the course of his teaching advances, according to the progress 
of his hearers, he pronounces to be Himself ( God, who is 
over all blessed/ And I wonder how some persons, when they 
read what the same Apostle says in another passage, There 
is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord 
Jesus Christ, through whom are all things/ deny that they 
ought to confess the Son of God to be God, lest they 
should seem to say that there are two Gods. And what 
will they make of this passage of the Apostle, in which it is 
plainly written that Christ is 2 God over all? They, how- 2 [or 
ever, who entertain these sentiments, do not observe that, as 
he did not declare the Lord Jesus Christ to be in such sense plainly to 
one Lord, as that on this account God the Father should 
not be called Lord ; so also he did not affirm God the 
Father to be in such a sense one God, as that the Son should 
not be believed to be God. For the Scripture is true, which 
says, Know ye that the Lord Himself is God/ Both, how 
ever, are one God, because the Son hath no other beginning 
of His Godhead than the Father; but the Son, as Wisdom 

bus hujus epistolse partibus designavit, duos Deos dicere videantur. Et quid 

ubi dicit, Quifactus est ex semine David de hoc loco apostoli facient, in quo 

secundum carnem; qui destinatus est aperte Christus super omnia Deus esse 

Filius Dei in virtute, secundum Spiritum perscribitur [perhibetur, ed. Bened.] ? 

sanctificationis. Et quoinodo secun- Sed non advertimt, qui baec ita sen- 

diim Spiritum Filius Dei sit, et secun- tiunt, quod sicut Dominum Jesum 

dum carnem Filius David, ibi plenius Christum non ita unum esse Dominum 

pro viribus exposuimus. Quern ergo dixit, ut ex hoc Deus Pater Dominus 

ibi secundum Spiritum Filium Dei non dicatur, ita et Deum Patrem non 

dixit, hie procedente doctrinae ordine, ita dixit esse unum Deum, ut Deus 

proficientibus utpote auditoribus, De- Filius non credatur. Vera est enim 

um, qui est super omnia benedictus, ip- Scriptura, quas dicit, Scitote, quoniam 

sum esse pronuntiat. Et miror quo- Dominus ipse est Deus. Unus autem 

modo quidam legentes, quod idem uterque est Deus, quia non est aliud 

apostolus in aliis dicit, Unus Deus Filio divinitatis initium, quam Pater; 

Pater, ex quo omnia, et unus Dominus sed ipsius unius paterni fontis, sicut 

Jesus Christus, per quern omnia, negent Sapientia dicit, purissima est manatio 

Filium Dei Deum debere profited, ne Filius. [lib. vii. 13. vol. iv. p. 612.] 

634 Passage genuine ; some even then thought that the catho- 
THE saith, is the most pure effluence of the one fountain of the 

117 B 


" Father itself." I am aware that Erasmus", (in order, no 

THE SON - doubt, the better to defend his own absurd interpretation of 
the remarkable passage of St. Paul, Romans ix. 5,) pretended 
that this paragraph was altered by Jerome, or whoever else 
[773] was the translator ; and that he endeavoured to prove this 
very point by the following argument, namely, " that it was 
strange, that Origen should here intimate that there were 
at that time persons who did not venture to call Christ God, 

1 plures lest they should seem to make a plurality of Gods 1 ." But, 

I ask, why is this so strange ? The doctrine of the Arians, 
forsooth, is here glanced at, (so Erasmus presently explains 
himself,) who were condemned many years after Origen. 
But who but must wonder that the great Erasmus should 
either not know or not remember, that there were many 
persons, not only in the time of Origen, but many years be- 

2 veriti fore him, who shrunk 2 from acknowledging the Son to be a 

Divine Person distinct from the Father, lest they should 
seem to be introducing two Gods ? Did not the Praxeans 
before Origen, (according to the testimony of Tertullian in 
the passage just now cited,) under pretext of the mon 
archy, deny that God the Father had a Son personally 
distinct from, and of the same nature with, Himself? 
And did not Noetus, a contemporary of Origen, main 
tain the same heresy ? And did not Beryllus teach the 
very same, with whom Origen himself disputed publicly 
in a synod of bishops ? There were others besides, both 
in the time of Origen and before it, who wholly and ab 
solutely denied the distinct subsistence of the Son in the 
Divine Essence, and so His Godhead, lest, forsooth, they 
should make two Gods. Had this learned man never heard 
of the Ebionites, who, professing themselves to be worship 
pers of one God the Father, affirmed Christ to be a mere 

3 $i\bv &v- man 3 ; and who are mentioned by name in more passages 

than one by Origen himself, in his treatise against Celsus ? 
And did not Theodotus the tanner , a long time before 
Origen, teach that very same doctrine? Lastly, that you 

" In his notes on Rom. ix. 5. Christ, consult [Bp. Bull s] Judgment 

* Concerning all theheretics hitherto of the Catholic Church, chap. 2, 3. 
enumerated, as denying the divinity of GRABE. 

lie doctrine implied Ditheism : other similar passages. 635 

may not suppose that the passage cited was interpolated by BOOK iv. 
Jerome or any other translator, you may see the same heresy c A 5 P 6 IV 
pierced with the same weapons in Origen s Commentary on ORIGEN. 
St. John, as edited by Huet in the Greek?. Further, this [774] 
same Origen, in his first book on Genesis, after saying that 
the Son is the everlasting brightness of the everlasting Light, 
subjoins^; "But He was not, as we have said of the eternal 
Light, unborn \ lest we should seem to introduce two prin- l innatus, 
ciples of Light; but as the brightness of the unbegotten Buii. y 
Light, having that very Light as His beginning and foun 
tain." Lastly, in book viii. of his unquestioned work against 
Celsus, he contends that the Christians are by no means 
chargeable with treason against God the Parent of all, albeit 
they adore with divine worship His Son also together with 
Himself. And this he proves by the argument, that all 283 
honour paid to the Son 2 redounds to God the Father, who 2 Filii 
begat Him. His words are these 1 ; "And Celsus cannot 
charge us with any insubordination in regard of the Son of 
God. Yea and we do indeed venerate the Father whilst we 
admire His Son, [who is] Word, and Wisdom, and Truth, 
and Righteousness, and whatsoever else we have learned the 
Son of God to be; thus also [we venerate the Father, in ad 
miring] Him who is begotten of such a Father." 

6. Lest any one, however, should class these also amongst ATHANA- 
the dangerous sayings, as they are called, of the primitive SI 
fathers, I add that the same doctrine was delivered by the 
fathers who lived after the Nicene council, and who were 
unwilling to depart a hair s breadth from its decisions. We 
have the most ample witness of this in the great Athanasius, 
the keenest defender of the Nicene faith. For thus he 
speaks in his Oration against the followers of Sabellius 3 ; [775] 
" But where the Principle is one and the Offspring from It 
one an image most exact and natural, because It is also be- 

P [See above,] chap. i. 10, of this fragment only preserved in Pamphilus 

book, near the end. [p. 570.] Apology, (c. iii. p. 25), in which it im- 

q Erat autem, non sicut de seterna mediately follows an extract out of the 

luce dixinms [innatus], ne duo prin- first book on Genesis ; hence the error 

cipia lucis videamur inducere; sed in the text.] 

sicut ingenitse lucis splendor, ipsam r pp. 386, 387. 13 : p. 751. [quoted 

illam lucein initium habens ac fontem. above, book ii. c. 9. 15. p. 258.^note L] 

[This passage is from Origen s com- " 6-rrov Se nia p\v rj apx^], *v Se rb 

mentaries on the Epistle to the He- e| OUTTJS yevvrjfjia, dKtav aKpi^effrdr-r) 

brews, (Works, vol. iv. p. 697.) It is a KCU (pvffiKr], SIOTI Kai yevvriT^ e avrov, 

636 SS. Athanasius, Basil, Greg. Naz., Casarius, Damascene, 



[unity of 
rule or of 

6 rj ere- 


gotten of Him, there is one God; the Godhead being con 
ceived of as perfect in the Father, and the Godhead of the 
Father subsisting 1 perfect in the Son also." But in his fifth 
Oration 1 against the Arians, near the beginning, he states 
the matter more fully ; " Since Christ," he says, t{ is God of 
God, and the Word, Wisdom, Son, and Power of God, on 
this account is one God announced in the divine Scriptures. 
For the Word, being Son of the one God, is referred to Him, 
of whom also He is ; so that Father and Son are indeed Two, 
but the unity 2 of the Godhead is indivisible and unseverable. 
And in this way also there would be said to be one prin 
ciple 3 of Godhead, and not two principles, whence there is 
strictly speaking 4 a monarchy 5 also. And of the principle 
Itself is the Word by nature Son. not subsisting by Himself, 
as if another principle, nor having come into being from a 
source external to this principle, lest from its being an 
other 6 there should ensue the rule of two 7 , or the rule of 
several 8 ; but of the one principle He is own Son, own 
Wisdom, own Word, subsisting from It." These state 
ments surely are clear. 

7. Basil likewise defends the unity of God against the 
Sabellians by the same reasoning, in his twenty-seventh 
Oration" ; [he says,] " There are not two Gods ; for neither 
are there two Fathers. Whosoever, indeed, introduces two 
Principles proclaims two Gods." Gregory Nazianzen, in his 
thirty-second Oration, beautifully calls the Father evwcns, 
union / because, (as Petavius rightly observes,) the cause 
of the unity in the Trinity is the putting forth and proces 
sion of One Person from Another, or, in other words, the 

efs eoV reAetas /j.ev ev Harpl TTJS 6e6- 
TTJTOS voov/j.evrjs, reAeiai Se KOI eV vltp 
TTJS irarpiKTJs 0eoT7?Tos vTrapxovarrjs. p. 
656. [vol. ii. p. 42. The Benedictine 
editor rejects this oration as not written 
by St. Athanasius. B. Bp. Bull, after 
quoting the Greek of -this passage, in 
troduces the Latin translation of it with 
the words, Qua verba, ut solet, nonnihil 
obscuravit interpres.~\ 

1 eTreiSav e/c ecu Qe6s ffn, Kal 
TOV 0eoG \6yos, (To<j)ia, vlbs, Kal Svva- early 6 XpiaWs SLO, TOVTO eis &ebs 
ev rdis Oeiais ypatya. is KarayyeA- 
Aercu. Tou ej/bs yap eou vlbs &v 6 
\6yos ei s aurb^, ov nai fcrnv, avafyt- 


laare Svo 
vibv, /jLOvdSa 5e 

ex^e/^ 8 civ Kal OUT cos /J.ia 
dOTT]TOS, Kal ov Suo dp^ai oQtv 
Kvpicos Kal /jLovapxta e tTTiz/. e| avrrjs 
Se rrjs apx?!* GCTTI (pvcrei vtbs 6 \6yos 
ovx els apX n fT" 6/ P a Ka 
ou5 e|co0ei/ Taurus 7670^5, iva 

raf aAAa TTJS fJ.ias dp%^$ ffi 
(ro(j)ia, tfiios \6yos, e| CUTTJS 
[Orat. iv. vol. i. p. 617.] 

u ov Suo Qeoi ou5e yap 5vo Trarepes. 
6 /xev ctp^cts elffdyuv Svo, ovo KripvTTfi 
eous. [Horn. xxiv. 4. vol. ii. p. 192.] 

Hilary, on the oneness of origin as a guard of the Unity. 637 

unity of principle. " There is one nature," he says x , " to 
the Three, God; and the Father is union, from whom and 
to whom are referred what follow." Again, in the twenty- ~ 
ninth Oration y, he says ; " The unity of God l , as I think, l ef s e&s. 
would be preserved, if both the Son and the Spirit are re 
ferred to one cause, without being compounded or confused." 
Csesarius 2 , in his first Dialogue on Question IV., says that 
Moses wrote a , The Lord thy God is one Lord/ in order [777] 
that he might raise us to the fjuovap^ia and Qeoyvcocrla, 
that is, " to the profession of one Principle and the know 
ledge of God." Which one Principle indeed is the Father, 
from whom the Son and the Holy Spirit have their origin. 
Damascene, in book i. chap. ll b , of his work, On the Ortho 
dox Faith, says, <e Wherefore we do not say three Gods, the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but rather one God, 
the Holy Trinity ; the Son and the Spirit being referred to 
one cause, without being compounded, or confused, accord- 284 
ing to the contraction 2 of Sabellius." Here any one can see 2 ffwaip*- 
that Damascene employed the very words of the Divine 3 , 3 Theo i 0(ri 
that is, of Gregory Nazianzen. Of the Latins we shall only 
quote one or two writers. Hilary, in his fourth book on the 
Trinity, says c ; "For [the fact] that the Son also is God does 
not take away from the Father that He is one God. For 
He is God of God, One of One ; on this account one God, 
because God of Himself 4 . But, on the other hand, the Son 4 ex se 
is on this account not the less God, because the Father is 
one God. For He is the only-begotten Son of God, not 
unoriginate 5 , so as to take away from the Father that He is 5 jnnasci- 
one God ; nor is He Himself any thing else than God, be- 

(pvffis 8e TOIS rpto~l [Jita, e6s. eVa 5e juaAAop e^f, TT\V ayiav rpidSa, 

ris Se 6 iraT^ip, e ov Kal Trpbs *bv avd- ets e> ainov vlov Kal Trvevfiaros avafys- 

yeTai TO. C^TJS. p. 520. [Orat. xlii. 15. po/J-evcof ov avvTiQe(<av, ov5e <rvva\ei- 

p. 758.] (po/j.vwv, Kara rrjv 2aj3eAA.j ou (rvvaipe- 

y rypoiTO 8 Uv, ws 6 e^ubs \6yos, efs aiv. [c. 8. vol. i. p. 140.] &ebs, fls ev atnov KO\ vlov Kal irvev- c Non enim Patri adimitur, quod 

/jiaros avacpepo/j.ei W ov ffvj TiOeiJ.evui , Deus unus est, quia et Filius Deus 

ouSe avvaXei<poiJ.4vc>v. p. 490. [Orat. sit. Est enim Deus ex Deo, unus ex 

xx. 7. p. 379.] uno ; ob id unus Deus, quia ex se 

z [Brother of Gregory Nazianzen. Deus. Contra vero non minus per id 

B.] Filius Deus, quia Pater Deus unus sit. 

a [roia. Se (prjalv, els (JLovapx<- av $* Kal Est enim unigenitus Filius Dei, non 

eoyvwo-iav avdycav 7)/ /j.a\\ov. innascibilis, ut Patri adimat, quod 

Bibl. Patr. Paris. 1624. vol. i. p. 551.] Deus unus sit; neque aliud ipse quam 

b 8i2>, oiSe rptis eovs Ae^o^uei/, rbv Deus, quia ex Deo natus est. p. 37. 

irarepa, Kal TOP VLOV, Kal rb ayiov Trvfv/J.a [ 15. p. 836.J 

638 These doctrines guarded against the perversions of the 

ON THE cause He is begotten of God." In like manner Fulgentius, 
h* s Reply to the objections of the Arians, Obj. V. d , writes, 
" For in two unbegotten [Persons] a different Godhead is 

[778] found; but in One Begotten of One Unbegotten a natural 
unity is shewn." 

8. Two points, however, should especially be observed with 
respect to this reasoning of the ancient Catholics, by which 
they prove the unity of God. First, that, so far as regards 
the words, it was embraced by the Arians also. For, the 
bishops of the Arian faction, at the council of Sirmium, 
having, in the beginning of their Confession, professed with 
the Nicene fathers that the Son of God is " God of God. Light 

* O 

of Light," towards the end define thus 6 ; " If any one say that 
the Son is unbegotten and without beginning [or principle], 
as if saying that there are two without beginning and two 
unbegotten, and making two Gods, let him be anathema ; 
for the Son is the head and principle of all; but the head of 
Christ is God. For in this way we religiously refer all things 
through the Son to one principle of all, who is Himself with- 
out a principle 1 ." It is however certain that they wrote these 
things insincerely, and with their usual sophistry. For the 
Arians believed that the Son of God was produced from God 
the Father, as His principle, in the way of creation, as all other 
things were ; and the only difference that they put between 
the Son of God and the rest of the creatures was this, that 
the Son was produced at first and immediately by the Father 
out of nothing, then afterwards the other things through the 
Son ; which even the bishops of the council of Sirmium 
themselves plainly indicate in those words, " we religiously re 
fer all things through the Son to one principle." For by 
these words they shew plainly, that they refer alike both 
-pews. the Son and all other things to God the Father, as a prin- 
[779] ciple; the Son immediately 2 , and all other things through 
the Son. But it would be vain and altogether absurd for 
any one to endeavour to prove that the Father and the 

d In duobus enim ingenitis, diversa Oe/na etrroj. /ce^a\^ yap tan Kal 

divinitas invenitur ; in uno autem travr^v 6 v ibs K(pa\r) 5e eVrt rov 

genito ex uno ingenito naturalis unitas XpurTov 6 (6s. ovrwyap els piav &vap- 

deinonstratur. [p. 59.] ~x ov r v oAwr ap^v Si vlov evcrefiws 

e elf TIS ayewriTov ical &vapxov \4yoi ra irdvra See Socrat. Hist. 

T^V vibv, &s Svo &vapx a Ka ^ 5wo a.ytv- Eccl., ii. 30. [p. 126.] 
j rjTO. \eycvv, ito.1 Svo iroi&v eoi/s, avd- 

Arians fy Semiarians; by i. the doctrine of consubstantiality . 639 

Son are one God, from the fact that the One exists from 1 BOOK iv. 

A P. 1 

7 < 

the Other as His principle, unless he understand a principle CHAP IV 

homogeneous and consubstantial. For, I repeat, unless this i ex 
be supposed in the argument, it will take no more trouble to 
prove, what is most absurd, that all created beings are one 
God with the Father ; inasmuch as all creatures have their 
origin in what manner soever from God the Father, as their 
principle. But that is a strange "God of God" of the Arians, 
who is no otherwise of God than in the way of creation, in 
which way all things that exist are of God. But you will say 
that these remarks are at any rate inapplicable to the Semi- 
Arians ; for that they held the Son to have been produced out 
of God the Father Himself, and not out of nothing 2 ; and yet 2 Q OVK 
they altogether denied that He was begotten of the substance ov v - 
of the Father. I allow that there were men who of old time 
taught this doctrine, whose views I have explained already f ; 
but they always appeared to me to be of all men the most ir 
rational. For before the creation, as there was nothing inter 
mediate between the substance of God and nothing, so there 
could not at that time have been any production intermediate 
between a production out of the substance of God, and a pro 
duction out of nothing. A Semi-Arian, therefore, as well as 
a semi-God, and a semi-creature, are alike monstrosities and 
prodigies, which all sensible and pious men with good reason 
abhor. The Son of God must of necessity be laid down to 
be either altogether true God, or a mere creature ; it is an 
axiom of eternal truth, that there is nothing intermediate be 
tween God and the creature, between the unmade and the 
made. The catholic fathers therefore employed this argu 
ment with altogether better right ; forasmuch as they all with 
one consent acknowledged the consubstantiality of the Son. 

9. The second point which I put before the reader as iieces- [780] 
sary to be observed is this, that this reasoning drawn from the 
unity of the principle, even though a consubstantial principle 
also be understood, is not, if it be regarded absolutely and uni 
versally, in all respects apt and suited to shew forth and prove 
the unity of God the Father and the Son. For, as Petavius 
also rightly suggests, it has a general conclusive force 3 in all 3 genera- 
cases, especially in the case of such beings as are endowed with c iudendi" 

f See Book ii. 9. 11. [p. 212.] vlm 

640 ii. by the production being internal, not external. 

ON THE life and animal being, in whom generation properly so called 
NATION OF i seen to take place. These [beings], however, although 
THE SON - they be of the same nature with the principle from which 
they spring, do yet constitute several individuals having a 
distinct and separate subsistence. I purposely added, there 
fore, in the proposition , that the Father is the principle of 
the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and that both are propa 
gated from Him, " by an internal not an external produc- 
85 tion;" from which it results, that They not only are of ( the 
Father, but in the Father, and the Father in Them ; and that 
in the Holy Trinity, one Person cannot be separated from 

1 supposita. another as three human persons, or individuals 1 of any other 

species, are divided one from another. For they who hold 
the notion that the three hypostases of the Godhead are in 
this way separate, are rightly called Tritheists ; of whose very 
gross error Hieronymus Zanchius has thus learnedly written 
in his treatise De tribus Elohim, v. 1, 2 h ; " This, however," he 
says, " they have imagined, because they also dreamed that 
the Son is begotten of the Father in such a way as to be ex 
ternal to His essence, even as our children are. For they do 
not perceive how one thing may be generated of another, and 
be its son, in such wise as yet to remain in that from which 
it is generated. And this results from their supposing that 

2 fieri. all generation is 2 as the schoolmen express it, ad extra*, (ex- 

3 7rj:>s e. ternal), and none ad infra 4 , (internal). The same observa- 

4 irp)s eo-oj. ^ on i m ake with respect to the procession of the Holy Ghost 

from the Father and the Son. And the cause of their devis 
ing these notions was, that, contemplating the Divine Essence 
with their own finite mind, they could not set It before their 
eyes as any other than finite : and they could not distinguish 
the Persons [of the Godhead] from Each Other, without also 
separating the essence of Each from the essence of the Other." 
And, when this very error was formerly objected by the Sa- 
bellians against the Catholics, who said that the Son, equally 
jerse. as the Father, subsisted by Himself 5 [i. e. as a distinct Per 
son], the bishops of the East, assembled at Antioch in the 
year 345, replied in their Confession of faith, called Macros- 
tick, in a way which I shall venture to designate as no less 

[That is, in the proposition at 627.] 
the beginning of this chapter. See p. h [vol. i. p. 518. ed. 1605.] 

Mutual inexistence called Trecorio-is, Circumincession. 641 

catholic than beautiful 1 , although it appears that not a few BOOK iv. 
of those bishops favoured the Arian heresy, and although H P 9. IV 
the word consubstantial is omitted in the confession itself i. . 
" But neither when we say that the Son is, and lives, and 
subsists of Himself 1 , just as the Father [does], do we on this * a0 law- 
account sever Him from the Father, imagining certain spaces rbv 
and intervals 2 to intervene in Their conjunction 3 , after a bodily 

fashion. For we believe that They are conjoined 4 , without % ara " , 
any thing intervening 5 or any interval 6 , and that They subsist rys a-wa- 
in separably from Each Other; the whole Father embosoming 7 ^" s av ~ 
the Son; and the whole Son hanging upon 8 and cleaving fast 4 eVio-w/fj- 
to 9 the Father, and alone continually reposing in His Father s ^" 
bosom." It would indeed have been strange that the Arians rus** 
who were present at that council should have subscribed [782] 
these statements, had they not confirmed with their sub- G Sta " T - 


scription, in the same formula, other assertions also which are 7 
diametrically opposed to the Arian heresy. Of that kind 
especially is the clause, that the Son of God " is by nature 
perfect and very God k ." The fact is, those lovers of darkness 10 9 
were ready to approve any confession of faith whatever, pro- ^ UK 
vided only that it did not include the word " of one sub- brionesl 
stance 11 ," even though other words were inserted in it, which " vocem 
in the judgment of all men of sound mind had altogether the IAO 
same meaning. I return however to my subject. The Father 
and the Son, then, are in such sense One, as that the Son is 
in the Father, and the Father in the Son ; and that the One 
cannot be separated from the Other. This mode of union 
the Greek theologians call Trepi^coprjaLs 1 , and the Latins, i.e. 
the schoolmen, some Circumincession, others, circuminsession. 
The word is thus explained, besides other writers, by Gene- 
brard, in his second book on the Trinity 01 , 

1 Valesius, in his Annot. on So- kavrSov 6\ov fj.fv rov TIarpbs 

crates Eccles. Hist., p. 24, pronounced vur/JLevov rbv vl6v 6\ov Se rov vlov efrp- 

the whole of this confession of the TTj/ueVou Kal Trpo(nrcj)VK6ros ry Harp], 

Eastern bishops to be most learned /col p.6vov TOIS irarptpois K^ATTO/S ava- 

and beautiful, (" doctissimam atque iravo^vov Snji/eKws. See Socrat. Hist. 

elegantissimam.") Eccles., ii. 19. p. 100. edit Valesii. 

J AAA. ou5e rbv vibv Kaff tawrbv [p. 102.] 

flvai, $fjv re Kal VTrapxtiv 6/j.oiws T(? k Oebi> Kara fyvfftv reXetov flvai Kal 

Tlarpl \eyovrcs, Sia rovro Xfifpifyfttv dArj0^. [Ibid., p. 100.] 

avriv rov Tlarpbs, r6irovs Kal diaffr-ff- [ [Concerning this irepix^prja-is the 

fjLard nva jueTa|t; rijs ffvva^eias avr&v author says more in his reply to G. 

<T(i>/j.ariK<)s fTuvoovvrfs. iririffr(VKa/j.fv Clerke. See his Animadversions on 

yap, a/j.ffirvrcos avrovs Kal aoiaararus the Preface, 4. B.] 

tTri(rvi>r)<p6ai, Kal a.-^wp io rws inrapxeu m p. 103. 

642 Circumincession defined. This union acknowledged, i., by 

ON THE and Circumincession" he says, " may be said to be that union 

SUBORDI- ky w hi cn one thing exists in another, not only by participa- 

THE SON. tion of [its] nature, but also by a full and intimate presence. 

This kind of inexistence, so to speak, our divines call circum- 

incession; because by it certain things, however much they 

may be mutually distinguished from each other without being 

separated, do [yet] exist in each other without confusion, and 

as it were flow into each other." 

10. I shall now shew that the ancients agreed in acknow 
ledging a union of this kind in the Persons of the Godhead, 
beginning with the doctors who preceded the Nicene council. 
[783] At this point, however, I would request my reader to recur 
to the store of testimonies which we accumulated in our for 
mer books. He will there find passages cited from the fathers 
separately, which teach that the Son of God subsists in God, 
1 gremio or abides in the bosom 1 of the Father, or that the Word is 
Mnsitum evermore set ^ H* 8 heart ; and, on the other hand, that the 
[eVSta0e- Father, on His part, is and exists in the Son ; all which ex 
pressions indicate not obscurely the union of which we are 
treating. Indeed, this idea is so clearly expressed in all the 
writings of, I may almost say, all the ancient authors, and is 
286 so repugnant to the Arian hypothesis, that I have often won 
dered how men of sense, and well acquainted with eccle 
siastical antiquity, could seriously charge those writers with 
Arianizing. For my part I think they might with greater 
appearance of truth have fastened on them the charge of 
Sabellianizing ; although that too is easy to be refuted, as we 
have elsewhere shewn. This also bears on the same point, 
that the same ancient writers do likewise with one consent 
profess, that the Son is begotten of the essence of the Father, 
without any cutting or division; and that He is put forth 
3 ex. from 3 the Father in such sense as that He is in no way 
separated from the Father. This is the teaching of Justin, 
and Tatian, and Theophilus of Antioch, and Tertullian, and 
Novatian, in short of them all. Accordingly Tertullian, in 
chap. 8 of his treatise against Praxeas 11 , says ; " This will be 
probola the putting forth of [scil. taught by] the truth 4 , the guard 
veritatis. of the Un j ty ^ wne reby we" (that is, all who are catholic 
on the article of the Trinity) " say that the Son was put 

" [Quoted above, p. 194.] 

the Antemcene fathers, as cited before ; special testimonies. 643 

forth from the Father, but not separated [from Him."] What, BOOK iv. 
however, can be clearer than that passage of Athenagoras YJTlfc 
which I have adduced in my second book, in chap. 4, 9, ~ 
at the very beginning [p. 152.] ? For there the learned 
writer, after stating that the Father and the Son are One, 
immediately declares the mode of Their union in these words ; 
" The Son being in the Father, and the Father in the Son, 
by the unity and power of the Spirit." You will find state 
ments clearly parallel in Clement of Alexandria, quoted in 
the same book, chap. 6, 4, [p. 186.] And Tertullian ex- [784] 
pressed the same [truth] with no less clearness than suc 
cinctness, in chap. 12 of his treatise against Praxeas , where 
he says that the Holy Trinity is "one substance in three 
coherent [Persons]," and therefore not diverse substances in 
Three [Persons] mutually divided One from the Other, and 
subsisting apart. Tertullian again, in chap. 25 of the same 
treatise?, writes ; " The connection ! of the Father in the Son, connexus. 
and of the Son in the Comforter, produces three [Persons] co 
herent one to another. These three [Persons] (tres) are one 
thing (unum), not one Person (unus.)" And again, at the end 
of chap. 8 1, " The Trinity, flowing down from the Father 
through intertwined and connected steps 2 , does not at all dis- 8 consertos 
turb the monarchy." Lastly, at the end of chap. 2. in the same n exos gra- 
treatise, he observes that in the Trinity there is r "number dus - 
without division." Very clear also is the passage from Origen, 
which also we quoted in our second book, chap. 9, 19, at 
the very end [pp. 268, 269] ; where Origen professedly im 
pugns the error of those " who cut the Divine Nature into 
parts, and, so far as lies in them, divide God the Father." 
"Whereas," he says, "to entertain such an idea, even in a 
slight degree, respecting a nature which is incorporeal, is [a 
mark] not only of extreme impiety, but also of the last de 
gree of folly ; nor is it at all congruous, even as a matter 
of conception 3 , that a substantial division of an incorpo- 3 vel ad in. 
real nature should be imaginable. But rather as will pro- tUnfcone- 
ceeds from mind, and yet neither cuts off any portion of qens. 
the mind, nor is separated or divided from it, in some such 

[See above, p. 195, note t.] r [Quomodo autem] numerum sine 
[See above, p. 205, note t] divisione [patiuntur, procedentes re- 

1 [See above, p. 132, note a.] tractatus demonstrabunt. p. 502.] 


644 Dionysius of Rome and Alexandria on the 

ON THE way is it to be supposed that the Father begot the Son." 
Ario^oF Again, although in his undoubtedly genuine work against 
FHE SON. Celsus, Origen throughout teaches that the Divine Nature 
and essence is common to the Son with the Father, as we have 
already abundantly proved, yet in the fourth 8 book of that 
treatise he expressly asserts that the nature of God is "in- 
[785] corruptible, simple, uncompounded, and indivisible." Where 
also he immediately adds, that the Son of God subsists in 
the form or nature of God ; and that, therefore, the self-same 
attributes of the Divine Nature belong to Him. Yea, and 
shortly afterwards, in the same passage, he calls the Son of 
God 1 , "God the Word, who is in Him (the Father)." Cer 
tainly, whoever shall duly weigh that remarkable passage of 
Origen, will see that therein it is distinctly taught that Two 
hypostases, the Father and the Son, subsist without any 
division in the same Divine Essence. See book ii. 9, 14. [p. 
255.] You will find a remarkable testimony of Dionysius 
of Rome of similar import in chap. 11. 1. of the same book, 
[pp. 302, 303 ;] in which that great man sharply rebukes 
those " who divide, and cut up, and destroy that most sacred 
doctrine of the Church of God, the Monarchy, dividing it 
into three powers (so to say), and divided hypostases, and 
Godheads three." In opposition to their heresy he shortly 
after states the catholic doctrine, saying ; " For the Divine 
Word must needs be one with the God of all ; and the Holy 
Ghost must needs repose and habitate in God ; and further, 
thus the Divine Trinity must be gathered up and brought to 
gether into One, as into a point, the God (I mean) of all, 
the Almighty." These words of Dionysius are no small 
confirmation of the definition of the TrepL^copTjais which the 
very learned Bellarmine u embraced, saying that the irepi- 
Xwp rjo-t,? is " the intimate and perfect inhabitation of one per 
son in another." Lastly, (not to say too much on so plain a 
matter,) in 5 of the same chapter, [p. 309,] you will find 
a passage quoted from Dionysius of Alexandria, in which 
that celebrated writer remarks on the ignorance of those 

8 [ 14. p. 510. Quoted above, p. 15. p. 511.] 

226.] w Bellarmin. de Christo ii. 5. [Op., 

[o Se rpav/jiaTa ra>v tyvxcov rjincov vol. i. p. 383.] 
8m TOV eV avrqi Xoyov eou. 

ii. by the fathers who lived after the rise of Arianism. 645 

who " know not, that neither is the Father, in that He is BOOK iv. 
the Father, separated from the Son; for the name is calcu- 
lated to introduce [the idea of] the union; neither is the 
Son removed from the Father ; for the designation * Father 
manifests the communion ; and in Their hands is the Spirit, 
which is not capable of being severed either from Him that 
sends, or Him that conveys Him." This same writer also 
makes this statement, that " the Trinity is gathered up into 
a Unity x without being divided or diminished." Lastly, in 287 
his reply to qusest. iv. of Paul of Samosata^, he speaks 
thus of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity ; " The Two 
hypostases " (that is, of the Father and of the Son) " are in 
separable, and also the insubsisting Spirit of the Father, 
which was in the Son." 

11. It remains for me to shew that the fathers who wrote 
after the rise of the Arian controversy agreed with these 
[whom I have mentioned.] And, inasmuch as the 1 passages 1 sententiae. 
in those fathers which bear upon this point are innumerable, 
we will bring forward a few testimonies from them, which 
may be taken as a specimen of the rest. Alexander of 
Alexandria, in his epistle to Alexander of Constantinople 
writes thus z on that passage of John the evangelist ; " The 
only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father." 
" For the divine teacher, purposing to shew that the Father 
and the Son are two things 2 inseparable from one another, 2 irpdy^ara 
spoke of Him as being in the bosom of the Father." The Suo 
same writer afterwards, in the same epistle a , says that the 
saying of Christ, I and My Father are one/ " is a statement 
significative of His natural glory and high birth 3 , and of His 3 cvyeveias. 
abiding with the Father." In like manner Athanasius, in [787] 
his fifth Oration against the Arians, says b ; "But as he 
who says that the Father and the Son are two, says [that 
there is] one God ; so let him who says [that there is] 
one God, regard the Father and the Son as Two [Per- 

* [Quoted above, p. 309.] See An- avrov eV rdis K6\Trois TOV Uarpos 

notations on chap. 11. [of book ii.] &v6/j.aaev. Apud Theodorit. Eccl. 

p. 150. [folio] col. 1. [of Grabe s edi- Hist, i. 4. p. 11. edit Valesii. [p. 12.] 

tion, in the appendix to this volume.] a [rSiv Se] TTJS <u<n/ojs avrov Sdfys 

GRABE. re /cat tvytvetas, Kal trapa Tip Tlarpl 

y [p. 230; quoted above, p. 238.] /novijsffrj/ TLKwv \6ywv. p.15. [p.lo .] 

z Kpovoov^i os yap 6 Oe ios SeiKvvvai b aAA tia-Trep 6 \4ycav Uarepa 

SiSdV/caAos aAA.TjAaJi dxajptrrra trpdy- Kal vibv Suo, eVa Qebv Ae^et, ovrcas 

para Svo, -rbv Tlarepa Kal rov vibv, ovra 6 \fycof eVa ebv, Suo (ppovfirca Tlarepa 



646 Pseudo-Dionysius Areop. ; illustration of th 

THE sons,] being One (ev) in Godhead, and in that the Word 
from 1 the Father is incapable of being parted, divided, 
THE SON, or separated from Him." So far, however, as it is possible 
for divine things to be shadowed forth by corporeal, the 
pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite sets forth the mutual in 
dwelling 2 of the Divine Persons in each other in an admi 
rable similitude, (with which Genebrard was wonderfully 
pleased,) in his treatise on the Divine Names, chap. 2. 
These are his words c ; " United indeed . . . and common {to 
the Trinity of one original] is the abiding and resting 3 in 
One Another, if one may so express it, of the Hypostases 
that are of one original 4 , [an abiding and resting] more 
than united, integrally, and in no part confused, as the 
lights of torches, (to use sensible and familiar examples,,) 
that are in one room, [i. e. the light proceeding from each 
respectively,] are both entire in entire, each in the other, un 
mixed, and have in all exactness their distinction from each 
other subsisting in each separate 5 light ; being united in their 
distinctness and distinguished in their union. Thus, for ex 
ample, when there are several torches in a room, we see the 
irpbs. [respective] lights of all united so as to become 6 one light, 
and lighting up one indivisible radiance ; and, as I think, no 
one would be able to distinguish, out of the air which in 
cludes all their respective lights, the light of this particular 
torch from the rest, and to see one [light] without another, 
they being combined without being mixed, entire in entire. 
But further, if one should withdraw one of the torches out 
of the room, there will go away along with it the whole of 
its own light, [yet] not drawing along with it any thing of 
[788] the other lights, nor leaving any of its own to the others ; 

KOI vlbv, ev ovras rrj Oforyri, Kal r$ e evcaffei StaKeKpi/J-eva. Kal yovv opu>p.ev ev 

avrov afj-epiarov, Kal aSiaiperov, Kal ofou iro\\uv evovrwv \a^irrr]pcav, irpbs 

axvpio-rov elvai rbv A6yov aTrb rov Ua- ev ri (pus evov^eva ra Trdvruv (pu>ra, Kal 

Tp OS , [Orat. iv. 10. vol. i. p. 624.] futav a"iyX-t}v atiiaKpirov avaXd/j-wovra. 

c yva/uLevov jueV eari [TJ? evapx^ Kal OVK av ris, us ofyuu, Svvairo rouSe 

TpiaSi,] KalKoivbv . . . y ev ctAA^Acus, et rov \a/u.irrr)pos rb c/xis airb ruv a\\<av 

ovrca xpb (f>di ai, rwv evapxtKcav vTroffrd- eK rov irdvra ra (pa>ra irepLexovros aepos 

<T<av [MOV7], Kal ISpvais, O\LKU>S vTreprjvci) SiaKplvai, Kal iSetV avev darepov Bare- 

p.evri, Kal ovSevl pepei ffvyKexvpevrj, Ka- pov, oXuiv ev O\OLS ct/J-iyws <TvyKeKpafJ.e- 

6dtrep (poara Xa^irriipcav, Lva alffQ-^rols vcav. aAAa Kal et rbv eVa ris ru>v Trvpcrwv 

Kal oiKeiois ~y OYicrojLLai, 7r(xpa$L*yiJLao~tv 9 virefcayayoi rov o&iLarioV) o~wei^e\ev(re 

ovra ev o5f/ca? evl, Kal 6\a ev aAA^Aots rai Kal rb olKelov aTrav (pus, ovoev n 

oAots e(Tr\v aKpaKbv ii Kal aKpi$Yi rwv ruv erepooi/ (buroov ev eavrcp o vveTTio Tru- 

atr a\\Ti\cav t5i/caJs v<t>i(TraiJ.evi]v eyet /JLZVOV, ^ rov eavrov rots erepois Kara- 

rf, SiawpiVet, Kal rfj Xelirov i\v yap avr&v, oirep e(pr)v, f) 

St. Basil and St. Cyril of Alexandria. 647 

for, as I said, their [union] was the perfect union of wholes BOOK i v - 
to wholes, absolutely unmixed, and in no part confused: and n f *|J; 
this truly in a corporeal substance, the air, and so as that the 
light was depending on material fire ; whereas we say that the 
super-substantial union has its place not only above those 
unions that exist in bodies, but also above those that exist in 
souls themselves, and in minds themselves." It is most certain 
that he who wrote this splendid passage was not Dionysius [789] 
the Areopagite ; it is clear, however, that he was a very 288 
early writer. The very learned and right reverend Pearson d , 
with whom I gladly agree, thinks that he wrote not long 
after the beginning of the fourth century. 

12. Basil sets forth this subject remarkably well in several 
places, especially in his forty- third epistle , where he treats 
thus of the Persons of the Godhead ; " For it is not possible 
to conceive of section or division in any way ; so as that either 
the Son should be conceived of as apart from the Father, or 
the Spirit be severed from the Son. But both the commu 
nion and the distinction in Them is apprehended as being an 
ineffable and inconceivable one ; the difference of the Per 
sons not rending asunder 1 the continuity of their nature ; nor 
the community in the essence confounding what is peculiar in ffrl5 
their characteristics 2 / In what follows in the same place 2 
of Basil there is more well worth reading. Cyril of Alexan- 
dria, in the seventh book of his Thesaurus f , designates the rcav - 
Father "the natural place" (TOTTOV (fewi/cov,) of the Son. 
Euthymius, in his Panoply g , briefly but accurately explains 
the whole notion of the TrepL^prja-^ [circumincession] in 
these words ; " And we say that These [Persons of the God 
head] are in Each Other, both because of Their mutually 

6\<av irpbs #Aa iravreX^s wuxris diAiyfys viov Sia^evx^ l/a " a ^\d TIS apprfros Kal 

KaQo\ov, Kal ovSevl /uepet ffv^irf^>vpfj.evr]. a.Karav6f]ros eV rovrois Kara\a/j.^dverai 

KCt.1 TaVTtt OVTCtiS V (TW/J.ari, r(p ttpl, KCtl KCU T) KOlVtoVLa KCU f) SiaKplfflS o(/T6 T7/S 

e evv\ov rov Trvpbs r/pr^jUeVou TOV $<a- T<Lv viroffTaffecav Siatyopas rb rrjs (f>v- 

rbs, oTrovye Kal TT^V vTrepovo iov eVwcrti/ <rea>s awe^es SmcTTrwffTjs, of/re rrjs Kara 

(pa/j-ev ov T&V cV <rw/j.a(ri rrjv ovffia.v KOIVOT-TJTOS rb Iftic.^ov ruv 

, a\\a Kal TUV iv i|/uxa?s yvcapicr/uidTGW aj/a^eouo Tys. torn. iii. p. 

auraTs Kal eV avTols v6oii, /c.r.A. [ 4. 67. [Ep. xxxviii. 4. vol. iii. p. 118.] 
p. 318.] f [ /i/ OVTGOS etna), rdiros CWT<P (pvcriKbs 

d Vindic. Epist. Ignat., part i. [c. 2.] o irarrip. vol. v. ] p. 51. 
p. 7. [p. 70. ed. 1852.] and c. 10 eV a\\-f]\ais 5e ravras <pa^v Sid 

throughout. re TT?I/ dAATjAoi/Xi ai avrwv, Kal rb <be- 

e ov ydp ecrTiv e7rii/orj<rat rofj.r)v, $ pd\\ri\ov, Kal Sid rb aTrfpiypaTrTov Kal 

, /car oi5eVa rp6irov us ^ vibv axwpYiTov T^TTOJ ert 8e /cat Sid TTJI/ /xmi/ 

larpbs voyQ^vcu, f) rb TrceC/wa rov rovr<av Qf:6rr]ra. Part i. tit. 2. 


John Damascene, on the 





1 aAATjAou- 



4 atrepiy- 

6 ev iJLffj.e- 


8 a5ia<rra- 




11 8id(popov. 

having 1 and bearing each other 2 , and because of Their being 
incapable of being circumscribed and contained in place ; 
and further, because of Their one Godhead." Damascene 
in more than one passage treats of this subject, and explains 
it admirably. In the first book of his work on the Orthodox 
Faith, chap. 11, after he had said that in [the case of] 
things created, individuals 3 are not mutually in each other, 
but exist separately, and that accordingly we speak of two 
or three men, and of many [men], he goes on to sfyew 
that the case of the Persons in the most Holy Trinity is 
altogether different 11 ; " For neither," he says, " can we speak 
of local interval, in the case, l of the uncircumscribed * God 
head, as we do in the case of ourselves ; for the Persons 
exist in Each Other ; not so as to be confused, but attached 
to 5 [One Another], according to the words of our Lord, I 
am in the Father, and the Father in Me/ And a little 
after he adds ; " For the Godhead is, to speak concisely, indi 
visible in divided 6 [Persons] ; and, as in the case of three 
suns that join on to each other, and have no interval between 
them, there is one commixture and conjunction of Their 
light." Here he employs almost the same similitude which 
we just now shewed that the pseudo-Dionysius used. Again, 
in book iii. c. 5 k , treating of the Divine Persons, he says, 
" We know, that They cannot go forth from 7 , or be set apart 8 
from Each Other, and that they are united, and mutually 
contained 9 , without being confused, One in the Other; and 
[that They are] united without being confused, for They 
are Three, although They be united and distinguished with 
out interval. For although each [Person] subsists by Him 
self 10 , that is, is a perfect hypostasis, and has His own pe 
culiar property, in other words, His mode of existence, dif 
ferent 11 [from that of the Others] ; yet They are united both 

a>s e</> 

TTJS dweptypdirrov 
aAA.77A.cus 70^ at 

h cure yap TOT 
, 8vvd/j.e9a 

v-rroffrdcreis ei<rlv, 

oAA w(TT execrflat, Kara T^V rov Ku- 
piov \6yov, 70; ev T(p ITarpl, Kal 6 
rioTT/p eV 6/uoi ..... o./j.epia ros yap V/j.e/u- 
picr/jLtvois, fl 8e? (rvvT^/j-us enreu/, f) 0eo- 
TTJS, Kal olov eV f)\iois rpivlv e^o/mevoLS 
/, Kal aSiCMTTaTOis ovai, fiia rov 
>s (rvyKpaffis re Kal (Twdtyeia. 

[c. 8. vol. i. p. 140.] 

k avfK(pOLT-fiTovs Se auras Kal a5ta- 
(TTaTOi/s aAAf/Acoi , Kal ^va>/xeVas, /cat eV 
as eiri- 

rpe?s 7ap eiViv, el Kal ^ixavrat Siaipov- 
ptvas 5e aStatrraTcos. et 7ap Kal f 

tffrlv vTr6(TTaais, Kal rrjv oiKeiav I$i6- 
rrjra, fjroi rbv TTJS virdp^ews rponov 8t- 
/ce/CTTjTat, aAA ^voivrai rfj re 

Synesius, Marius Victorinus, and St. Ambrose. 649 
in Their essence and in their natural properties 1 ; and, in BOOK 



that They are not removed by an interval, nor go out from CHAP IVt 

the Father s hypostasis *, They both are, and are said to i I9u& a(ri 
be, also, one God only." To these testimonies of the Greeks 2 rr, s 7m- 
I shall add, to refresh the reader, a verse from Synesius, T P l ^ sf>ir - 

J J <TTtt(TU l S- 

bishop of Gyrene, who flourished at the commencement of 
the fifth century. In his third hymn he thus sings ! : 

Thee I sing, O Trinity ; 

Unity Thou art, being Trinity ; 

Trinity Thou art, being Unity ; 

And intellectual 3 division 3 voepa. 5e 

Holds yet unrent ropk. 

That which is separated. 

The same also occurs in his fourth hymn. 

13. Among the Latins, Marius Victorinus, at the begin- 289 
ning of his second book against Arius, thus speaks of God 
the Father and the Son m ; "But whilst we acknowledge Two 
severally, we yet say that there is one God, and that Both 
are one God, because the Father is in the Son, and also the 
Son in the Father." In like manner Ambrose, on Luke, 
book x. chap. 20, says n ; "Both the Father is Lord, and the 
Son is Lord ; the Lord said unto my Lord ; and not two 
Lords, but one Lord ; because both the Father is God and 
the Son is God, but yet one God ; because the Father is in 
the Son, and the Son is in the Father." Again, in book ii. 
on Faith, chap. 2, he saysj "The Father and the Son have 
distinction, as Father and Son ; but they have no separation 
of Godhead." Again, in his treatise on the Dignity of Man s 
Creation, chap. 2 p , he thus connects together in a brief and 
acute statement, both the unity of principle and the circum- 
incession ; " He is called God the Father on this account, 

Kal rois <pv<riKo is i8iw/j.a(Ti, Kal Patre. [Bibl. Patr. Galland., vol. viii. 

T<f fjLTj SuaTatrOai, jiirjSe eK$oirS.v rr\s p. 175.] 

irarpt/o/s viroa-rdaetas, Kal fls eb? flat " Et Pater Dominus, et Filius Do- 

re KOI \4yovrai. [p. 210.] minus; Dixit Dominus Domino meo ; et 

1 TjttvoJ ff rpids. non duo Domini, sed unus Dominus; 

Movas ?, Tpia<> &v quia et Pater Deus, et Filius Deus, 

Tpias e?, ij.ovas &v. sed unus Deus ; quia Pater in Filio, et 

Noepa 5e rojuo Filius in Patre. [x. 4. vol. i. p. 1504.] 

"Ao-xio-Toi/ Ti Pater et Filius distinctionem ha- 

Tb fjiepirrOfv X fl [P- 324.] bent, ut Pater et Filius; separationem 

m Sed cum fatemur singulos duos divinitatis non habent. [ii. 3. vol. ii. 

[an legendum/)eo,9 ? B.] unum tamen p. 476.] 

Deum dicimus,et ambos unum Deum, P Ideo autem dicitur Deus Pater, 

quod et Pater sit in Filio, et Filius in nuia inse est ex quo ; et sapientia est, 

650 On the union of the Divine Persons ; Pseudo-Ambrose 


6 ipsum 


4 ipsum 


3 ipsum 


6 ipsa quae- 



8 aHoqui. 

because He is that from which [all things spring] ; and 
[the Son is] Wisdom, by which all things are ordered ; and 
[the Spirit is] Love, whereby all things will to continue so as 
they were ordered. He therefore from whom [They are], 
and He who is from Him, and He by whom the Two love 
Each Other, are Three ; and these Three are therefore One, 
because the Two are so from One, as that They are yet not 
separated from Him; They are, however, of 1 Him, because 
not from 2 Themselves; and in Him, because not separate; 
moreover, They are the very same which 8 He [is] ; and He 
the very same which 4 They [are] : and They are not the very 
same which 5 He is, and He is not the very same which 6 They 
are." Here, I repeat, he joins together the unity of prin 
ciple and the circumincession, shewing that the Son and the 
Holy Ghost not only are of the Father, but are in Him, and 
are not in any degree separated from Him ; and, consequently, 
that all the Three are one God ; one and the same in nature 
and essence ; but three in subsistence. Hilary, on the Trinity, 
book viii., says q , that " the Father is in the Son, and the Son 
in the Father, by the unity of an inseparable nature; not 
confused, but undivided ; not mixed, but without difference ; 
not cohering, but existing; not unconsum mated, but perfect. 
For there is begetting 7 , not division ; and a Son, not an adop 
tion ; and God, not a creation, &c. The Apostle therefore 
holds this faith of the Son abiding in the Father, and of the 
Father in the Son, declaring that to him f there is one God, 
the Father, and one Lord, Christ. " When Hilary here says 
that the union of the Father and the Son is not cohering, he 
only excludes such coherence as exists in things formed out 
of matter. For in another view 8 , the catholic doctors, as we 

qua ordinantur omnia ; et dilectio, qua 
se volunt omnia itamanere, ut ordinata 
sunt. Ex quo ergo, et qui ex eo, et 
quo se diligunt ipsa duo, tria sunt, et 
ilia tria ideo unum, quia sic sunt ex 
uno ilia duo, ut tamen ab ipso non sint 
separata ; sed ex ipso sunt, quia non a 
se ; et in ipso, quia non separata ; et 
ipsum ipsa, quod ipse ; et ipsum ipse, 
quod ipsa ; et non ipsum ipsa qui ipse, 
et non ipsa ipse quae ipsa. [This 
treatise is wrongly ascribed to Am 
brose. See Op., vol. ii. Append., p. 
611. B.] 

i [Una igitur fides est] Patrem in 
Filio, et Filium in Patre, per insepara- 
bilis naturae unitatem [confiteri] ; non 
confusam, sed indiscretam ; neque per- 
mixtam, sed indifferentem ; neque co- 
haerentem, sed existentem; neque in- 
consummatam, sed perfectam. Nati 
vitas est enim, non divisio; et Filius 
est, non adoptio ; et Deus est, non 
creatio, &c. Tenet hanc itaque ma- 
nentis in Patre Filii, et Patris in Filio 
fidem, unum Deum Patrem, et unum 
Dominum Christum sibi esse aposto- 
lus praedicans. [viii. 41. p. 972.] 

and St. Hilary, St. Jerome, and Fulgentius. 651 

have seen, did not hesitate to assert that the Father and BOOK TV. 
the Son mutually cohere. Jerome, on the third chapter of H A 13. IV 
Ezekiel r , writes, " The Son is the place ! of the Father, as the f locus> 
Father, likewise, is the place of the Son; as our Lord and 
Saviour says, I am in the Father, and the Father in Me/ " 
Lastly, Fulgentius, in his third book to Monimus, chap. 7 s , 
shews that one human being exists with 2 another human 2 a pud. 
being, by whom he is most beloved, in one sense, and the 
Word with the Father in another sense, in these words ; 
" For [one] man is with 3 [another] man in such sense, as that 3 apud. 
it is not only possible for him not to be 4 with him, but impos- 4 non esse 
sible to be 5 in him substantially, even when he is with him. f ( 

* * e f esse non 

For he who is in this sense with another, is in reality exter- possit. 
nal to him ; because when he is with him in the sincerity of 
love, he is separated from him in place, how great soever may 
be the affection with which they are bound each to the other. 
But the Word is with God, as a word is in the mind, or 
a purpose in the heart. For when the mind has a word with 6 e apud. 
itself, it has it of course by [the act of] thinking, because to 
speak with 7 oneVself is nothing else than to think with one s- ? apu d. 
self. When therefore the mind thinks, and by thinking gene- [794] 
rates within itself a word, it generates the word of 8 its own sub- 8 de. 
stance ; and in such wise does it generate that word of itself, 
as that when begotten it has it with itself. Nor is the word, 
which is the offspring of the mind, any thing less 9 than the D nee mi- 
mind from which it springs ; because as great as is the mind 
which generates the word, so great also is the word itself. 
For as the word is born of the whole mind, so does it, when 
born, continue within the whole [mind]. And because, 
when the mind is engaged in thought, there is not any part 

r Filius locus est Patris, sicut et enim mens apud se verbum habet, 

Pater locus est Filii, dicente Domino utique cogitando habet, quia nihil aliud 

Salvatore, Ego in Patre, et Pater in Me. est apud se dicere, quam apud se cogi- 

[i. 3. in Ez. iii. 12. vol. v. p. 31.] tare. Cum ergo mens cogitat, et cogi- 

8 Homo enim apud hominem sic tando verbum intra se generat, de sua 

est, ut non solum apud eum non esse substantia generat verbum ; etsicillud 

possit, sed etiam cum apud eum est, verbum generat de se, ut genitum ha- 

in ipso substantialiter esse non possit. beat apud se. Nee minus aliquid ha- 

Vere enim qui sic apud alium est, ex- bet verbum, quod ex mente nascitur, 

tra ilium est ; quia cum est apud ilium quam est mens, de qua nascitur ; quia 

sinceritate dilectionis, loco discernitur, quanta est mens, quse generat verbum, 

quantolibet affectu invicem sibi uter- tantuin est etiam ipsum verbum. Si- 

que jungatur. Sed sic est Verbum cut enim de tota mente nascitur ver- 

apud Deum, sicut est in mente ver- bum, sic intra totam permanet natum. 

bum, sicut in corde consilium. Cum Et quia cogitante mente non est ejus 

652 i. In what sense predicated of the two Natures in Christ ; 


1 apud 
illam; sell, 

Aas irept- 


4 usque- 



5 mtra 

of it in which the word is not, therefore the word is as great 
as is the mind itself, of which it is ; and when it is with 
it 1 , it is in it; and what the mind itself is, that the word is, 
which is of it and in it ; and as great as it [the mind] is, so 
great is the word also, because it is of the whole, and in 
the whole [mind], and the word itself is as great as is the 
mind itself also together with the word. For the word is 
not so born from it [the mind] as to be locally separated 
from it." ^ f 

14. For the rest there are three points which we have to 
observe, on the Trcpi^p^or^, (circumincession,) of the Persons 
in the most Holy Trinity. First; when some of the ancients* 
also attribute circumincession to the two natures in Christ, 
which they say interpenetrate each other 2 , we must under 
stand them to use the expression in a less proper sense 3 . For 
inasmuch as Trep^ooprjcns (circumincession), properly speak 
ing, is the union of those things which mutually enter each 
other throughout 4 , (as the preposition irepl indicates,) it is re 
quired unto it that neither of the things thus united be exter 
nal to the other ; but that wherever one of them is, there also 
does the other exist. Now in Christ, the Divine Nature indeed 
does throughout enter into the human, but the human does 
not in its turn enter into the Divine ; forasmuch as the human 
nature is finite and circumscribed, the Divine infinite and 
immeasurable; whence it is impossible that the former be 
wheresoever the latter is. But in the Trinity the circum 
incession is most proper and perfect, forasmuch as the Per 
sons mutually contain Each Other, and all the Three have 
an immeasurable whereabouts ; (immensum ubi, as the school 
men express it;) so that wheresoever one Person is, there 
the other two exist; in other words, They all are every 
where. Whence Tertullian says, in his treatise against 
Praxeas, c. 23 ; " We know that God is even 5 in the depth 
below, and that He every where subsists ; and that the Son 

aliquid, ubi in ea verbum non sit, ideo 
verbum tantum est, quanta est mens 
ipsa, de qua est; et cum apud illam 
est, in ilia est ; et quod ipsa mens est, 
hoc est verbum, quod de ilia et in ilia 
est, et quanta ilia est, tantum etiam 
verbum est, quia de tola, et in tota est. 
Tantumque est ipsum verbum, quanta 

simul est et mens ipsa cum verbo. 
Neque enim sic de ilia verbum nasci- 
tur, ut ab ea localiter secernatur. 
[iii. 7. p. 49.] 

1 Gregor. Naz. Orat. li. p. 740. [Ep. 
ci. t. ii. p. 87. ed. Par. 1840.] Damas- 
cen. de Orthod. Fide, iii. 5. [p. 210, 

ii. precludes Sabellianism ; iii. is most mysterious. 653 

also, as inseparable from Him, is every where with Him." In BOOK iv. 
the next place, I would remind the reader, that this doctrine ?ij?*iJ 
of the circumincession of the Persons in the Trinity is so far ~ 
from introducing Sabellianism, that it is of great use (as Peta- 
vius has also observed) for [establishing] the diversity of the 
Persons, and for confuting that heresy. For in order to that 
mutual existence [in each other] , which is discerned in the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, it is absolutely neces 
sary that there should be some distinction between those who 
are thus joined together 1 ; that is, that those that exist mutu- * copula- 
ally in each other, should be different in reality, and not in 
mode of conception only. For that which is simply one is 
not said to exist in itself, or to interpenetrate itself. This is 
touched on by Cyril of Alexandria also, in his Thesaurus, book 
xii. u , where he says ; " In order that by the [statement] that 
This [Person 2 ] is seen [to exist] in That, and That in This, 2 rovrov. 
He may shew the identity of the Godhead, and the unity of 
the substance : and by the [statement] , that one is in an 
other, it may not be conceived to be one in number." Refer 
also to the passage of the pseudo-Dionysius, which we have 
already quoted in this chapter. Lastly, this is especially to 
be considered, that this circumincession of the Divine Per 
sons is indeed a very great mystery, which we ought rather 
religiously to adore, than curiously to pry into. No simili- [796] 
tude can be devised, which shall be in every respect apt to 
illustrate it; no language avails worthily to set it forth; 
seeing that it is an union which far transcends all other 
unions, as we just now heard that most learned writer say, 
who is commonly called Dionysius the Areopagite. In the 
midst of this darkness which involves us, we both conceive 
and speak, or rather lisp, like children, concerning this and 
other Divine mysteries. While we are in this life, we behold 
our God as it were in a glass darkly 3 , but the time will come, 3 
or rather, eternity, which is beyond all time and period, will mate - 
come, wherein we shall see Him face to face. The beatific 
vision of God will then chase all darkness from our minds. 
Let us earnestly and humbly supplicate the Divine mercy 

a 5ia fjLfV TOV, rovrov ii> eitelva), fv6rr]ra 8eiy Sid 8e rou, frepov 4v 
v fv rovTy QaiveffOai, r}\v rav- crepe? e?i/ai, /j.^ eV ri %v sv apidpy vot\- 

T7JS Oe6rf)TOS, Kttl T7JS OVfftaS T7?l/ 6$. - [vol. V. p. 109.] 

654 Knowledge of this mystery desired, rather than possessed. 

night and day, to make us worthy of this at the last. Mean- 

wnne > so l n g as we are on our Wa 7 1 > we rather desire to know, 
THE SON. than do [actually] know clearly, " what" (to use the words of 
1 viatores. the learned Athenagoras*) " is the Oneness of the Son with 
the Father ; what is the communion of the Father with the 
Son ; and what the Spirit is ; and what is the union of 
These that are so great, and [what] the distinction of Them 
united; the Spirit, the Son, and the Father." 

x ris f) rov TraiSbs Trpbs rbv TIarepa rov irvev/j-aros, rov iraiSbs, TOV lfo.rp6s. 

kvAriis ris f) rov Tlarpbs irpbs riv vibv Legal, pro Christianis, p. 12. [ 12. 

Koivwia, ri rb TrvfVfj.a ris f} r&v ro- p. 289.] 
aovrcav evwffis, Kai Siaipeais 



THROUGH a boundless ocean, so to say, of ancient writers, CONCLU- 
the grace of God prospering our voyage, we are at length sue- SION 
cessfully, as I hope, reaching our port. For I think that I have 
fulfilled the promise which I made when I began this work; in 
asmuch as I have shewn, by many and clear testimonies, the 
consent of primitive antiquity with the fathers of the council of 
Nice, on these four heads ; first, that Christ our Lord in His 
higher nature existed before [His birth of] the most blessed 
Virgin Mary, and, further, before the creation of the world, 
and that through Him all things were made ; secondly, that 
in that very nature, He is of one substance with God the 
Father, that is, [that] He is not of any created and mutable 
essence, but of a nature entirely the same with the Father, 
and consequently very God ; thirdly, which is a consequence 
of this, that He is co-eternal with God the Father, that is, a 
Divine Person co-existing with the Father from everlasting ; 
lastly, that He Himself is, nevertheless, subordinate to God 
the Father, as to His Author and Principle. The first article, 
indeed, I touched on lightly and briefly 1 , because the Arians 1 strictim. 
of their own accord conceded it, although by this very con 
cession, that God the Father, I mean, created all things out 
of nothing through the Son, they appear to me to have 
simply given up their own cause. For I am quite of opinion 
with the more sound of the schoolmen, that to a creature 
made out of nothing, such as the Arians imagined the Son 
of God to be, the power of producing other things out of 


656 To be instrumental in creation implies Divine Nature. 

nothing can in no measure be communicated. One of these, 
[798] Estius 8 , says,, "It is impossible for a creature to be raised 
by supernatural power to a capacity of acting of such sort, as 
that he should co-operate as a physical instrument in the 
work of creation; inasmuch as it pertains to the proper 
nature of an instrument of this kind to operate by means of 
disposi- something belonging to itself in the way of disposing 1 towards 
the effects of the principal cause. Wherefore a creature 
cannot be employed, even by Divine power, as a physica} in 
strument, for creating, supposing the proper nature of an 
instrument of this kind to continue unimpaired." The 
ground of the argument he had previously set forth in the 
same passage b ; " Nothing," he says, " can be a principal 

2 virtutem. cause of creation unless it possess infinite power 2 ; for the 

more remote the form to be produced is from its state of 

3 potentia. potential existence 3 , the greater power is required in the 

agent ; and consequently, in order to produce a form where 

4 ex nulia there is no potential existence 4 , as is the case in creation, an 

infinite power is required ; but this it is impossible to com 
municate to a created being." Hence from the work of 
creation [being] common to the Father and the Son, the 
ancient catholic writers, even those who wrote before the 
Nicene council, inferred the common Divinity of both. Nay, 
Origen himself, in his second book against Celsus, expressly 
teaches that nothing except the Word of God Himself, that 
is to say, nothing external to God Himself, could have had 
power to effect the creation of the universe. For on Gene 
sis i. 26, "Let Us make man," &c., and on the passage 
of David, Psalm cxlviii. 5, " He spake the Word and they 
were made," c., he thus comments in that place ; " For if 
God commanded and the creatures were made, who else 
must He be, who, according to the mind of the prophetic 

* Non potest creatura supernatural! instrument!. In lib. ii. Distinct, i. 4. 
virtute elevari ad hujusmodi actionem, b Nihil potest esse causa principalis 

qua tanquam instrumentum physicum creandi, nisi virtutem habeat infinitam. 

cooperetur creation! ; eo quod ad pro- Nam quanto forma producenda remo- 

priam hujus generis instrument! ratio- tior est a potentia, tanto major requi- 

nem pertineat,per aliquid sibi proprium ritur virtus in agente ; et proinde ad 

operari dispositive ad effectum causae producendam formam ex nulla poteiu 

principalis. Quare nee divina virtute tia, quod fit in creatione, requiritur vir- 

poterit assumi creatura ad creandum, tus infinita ; hanc autem impossible 

tanquam instrumentum physicum, sal- est creaturae communicare. [Ibid.] 
va manente propria ratione hujusmodi 

Passages from the Fathers clearly teaching this. 657 

Spirit, was able to execute so great a commandment of the CONCLU- 
Father, other than He, who is, so to call Him, His living - 
Word and the Truth ?" Moreover the most ancient fathers 
did, with one consent, sharply rebuke the Gnostics on this 
ground, that they taught that this world was made by * t 799 ^ 
angels, and by 2 powers inferior to God and alien from Him. 2 P ^ 
Most explicit, especially, are the passages of Irenseus, which 
we have already quoted in book ii. 5, 7. [p. 173.] " There is 
One only God the Creator," he says in book ii. 55 d ; "even 
He who is above all principality, and power, and dominion, 
and might; He is the Father, the God, the Founder, the 
Maker, the Creator, who made these things by 3 His own self, 3 per. 
that is to say, by His Word and His Wisdom, the heaven 
and the earth and the seas, and all things which are therein." 
He says again in book iv. 37 e ; "The angels, then, neither 
formed us, nor fashioned us ; nor were angels able to make 
the image of God : nor any other [being] except the Word of 
God, nor any power far removed from the Father of the uni 
verse. For God had no need of these, to make those things 292 
which He had fore-ordained within Himself to be made, as 
if He Himself had not hands of His own, For there is ever 
present with Him His Word and His Wisdom, the Son and 
the Spirit, through whom and in whom 4 He made all things 4 per quos 
freely and spontaneously; unto whom also He speaks, when |j us n ^ 
He says, Let us make man in Our own image and likeness / 
He Himself receiving from Himself the substance of the 
creatures, and the pattern of what was made, and the figure 
of the embellishments which are in the world." In these 
passages Irenseus clearly teaches that God the Father neither 
made, nor either needed to make, or could have made, this 
universe by any thing external to Himself; and at the same 
time teaches no less clearly, that He Himself created all 
things through the Son and the Holy Ghost. 

The second article respecting the consubstantiality of the 
Son I have proved most copiously, because on that the hinge 
of the whole controversy manifestly turns. If in this point 
primitive antiquity be found to be on our side, the other [800] 
points which have been called in question by the Arians will 

c See the Greek of this passage d [c. 30. 9. p. 163. (seep. 173, note e.) 
quoted in book ii. 9. 5. [p. 222, note r.J e [c. 20. p. 253. (see p. 174, note f.) 


658 The judgment of the Antenicene Fathers was appealed to 

CONCLU- be easily decided. For if this hypothesis be granted,, namely, 
1 that the Son is of the same nature and essence with God 
the Father, the whole structure and framework of the Arian 
heresy is utterly overthrown. But not a single Antenicene 
doctor can be named by the Arians who did not confess this 
very point. "With respect to the third article, I have evidently 

potiorem. shewn that the greatest and most authoritative 1 portion of 
the primitive fathers openly and unambiguously professed the 
eternity of the Son ; and that the smaller number of doctors 
of the Church, who attributed to the Son a generation com 
mencing from some definite beginning, however much they 
may have differed from the former in words, did yet in reality 
agree with them. In the last place, I have shewn with no less 
clearness, that the Antenicene doctors attributed to the Son 
no other subordination to the Father, than what has been ac 
knowledged by Catholics who wrote after, and in opposition 
to, the heresy of Arius ; and, moreover, I have clearly shewn 
that those expressions of theirs which are somewhat harsh in 
appearance, not only admit, but actually require a catholic 
interpretation. From all which it is manifest that Petavius 
was too liberal in giving up to the Arians the suffrages of the 
Antenicene fathers; and that Sandius and others are alto 
gether wrong, who, relying on the authority of the Jesuit, 
have confidently affirmed that the doctors of the first three 
centuries held with Arius. 

Certainly very far other was the mind and judgment of 
the catholic fathers, who in former days engaged in conflict 
with the Arians. So far were they from dreading the judg 
ment of the primitive fathers, that they willingly appealed to 
it. Thus Athanasius in his treatise on the Decrees of the 

[801] council of Nice, after having quoted the testimonies of some 
ancients in defence of the Nicene Creed, thus at last addresses 
the Arians f ; "Lo, we, for our part, prove that a view of this 
kind has been transmitted from fathers to fathers; whilst 
you, modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, whom have you 
to shew as the fathers of your statements ? There is not one 
of the wise and prudent whom ye can name; for all reject 

f tSou riu.tis jUer fK Trarepcav els Trare- /ecu TOW Ka idcpa /j.adr]Tal, vivas apa TUV 
pas 8ia/3e/3 r)Ki tti TT]I> ToiavTTr}v Stavoiav pri/uidTuv viJ.G)v e^eTe 8e?(u Traxepas ;> vfj.e is Se, & veoi lovSaloi aAA s ouSeVa TWV <ppoviiu.(0v /ecu ffotyuv Uv 

by the Catholics, and the novelty of Arianism asserted. 659 

you, except the devil alone; for he alone has been to you CONCLU- 
the father of such an apostacy as this/ Many writings of SION 
the ancient fathers had been seen by Athanasius, which 
have now perished, to the great detriment of the Church. 
Out of all, however, whom he had read, he confidently 
asserts, and that not in a discourse addressed to the peo 
ple, but in a written disputation against the Arians, that 
the heretics could not produce even one approved doctor 
who maintained their blasphemies. And indeed we in this 
work have abundantly proved, that there is no one among 
the primitive catholic fathers, whose writings have been 
rescued as it were out of a wreck, by the providence of 
God, for us their late posterity, who was not on the side of 
the Nicene bishops. Nay, the Arians themselves, although 
before the ignorant multitude they boasted that they held 
the faith transmitted by the fathers, and were even able to 
give a colour to their heresy from certain expressions of some 
of the fathers wrongly understood, (as we have shewn in for 
mer chapters,) did yet, when pressed in controversy, entirely 
decline the judgment and authority of the ancients. The 
account of Sisinnius is remarkable, which is related by So- [802] 
crates, Eccles. Hist. v. 10, and which I have already touched 
ong . (i rpk e em p eror (Theodosius) then, having sent for the 
bishop Nectarius, deliberated with him what means could be 
devised, in order that Christianity might be freed from dis 
cords, and the Church be made one. He declared, moreover, 
that the question which was dividing the Churches ought to 
be discussed, and that, having removed discord, they should 
bring about concord for the Churches. On hearing this 
Nectarius was thoughtful and anxious -, and sending for Agel- 
lius, who was then the bishop of the Novatians, as being of 
one mind with himself in respect to the faith, he disclosed to 
him the emperor s purpose. And he, though in other re- 

eftrorre iravres yap upas aTroffTpetyov- crOTJvai rb xpi"oj/ ras e/fKArjrnas 

TCU, ir\})v fj.6vov rov Am/3oAoir fj.6vos fia, TJjvTe 5La<p<ai>iai> fKiroScavTroi lia ai Tas, 

yap vfjuu OUTOS TT)S TOLO.VTTIS anofTTacrias o/JLotyctiviav TCUS KK\Tf]ffiais fpydcraffOai, 

irarfyp ytyovsv. [ 27- vol. i. p. 233.] Tovro aKOvaas 6 NeKraptos, ev (ppuvri- 

/u6TO7re i iaJ/ayuej>os olv 6 /3a<rjAei>s GIV 1]V /col jueTa<rT6iAa//.ei>os rbv TT\VI- 

Ne/CTaptoi/ rbi eiriaKoirov, GKOLVoXoyetTO Kavra riav Nauarmuwi/ tirla KOTTOV A7e- 

Trpbs avrbv, rls &V ytvoiTo fj-rj^avr), OTTODS Xiov, ws Kara rrjv iriaTiJ t>fj.6<ppova, 

p/t] Stafpcavoif] 6 XptcTTiai/Jcr/xc)?, ciAA ev(a- (pavepav aury TT]V TOV /3ao"iA6a>s KaOi- 

re SeTf (TTTja t yvw^v. & 8e, TO /j.V ^AAa i\v 


660 Appeal to the preceding Fathers declined by the Arians ; 





leg. irpo- 
rwv. Vales 


, Kal 
OVK ap- 


spects a religious man, yet being unable to dispute argu- 
mentatively about the doctrine, put forward a reader under 
him, called Sisinnius, to undertake the discussion. But Si- 
sinnius, a man of learning and practical experience, and ac 
curately acquainted both with the interpretation of Holy 
Scripture and the doctrines of philosophy, was conscious that 
argumentative disputations not only do not heal divisions, 
but rather make heresies even more contentious; and ac 
cordingly suggested a plan of this kind to Nectarius. Well 
knowing that the ancients shrunk from attributing 1 to the 
Son any beginning of existence, seeing that they considered 
Him to be co-eternal with the Father; he advises him to 
avoid dialectic discussions, and to adduce as witnesses the 
expositions [of faith] of the ancients, and that the emperor 
should enquire of the leaders of the heresy whether they 
make any account of the doctors who flourished 2 in the 
Church before the division, or whether they reject them as 
aliens from the Christian religion. For if indeed they do 
reject them, then let them be bold enough to anathematize 
them ; and if they make them venture on this, they will 
be driven out by the people; and on this being done the 
victory of the truth will be manifest. If on the other hand 
they do not repudiate the ancient doctors, it will be our 
business to produce their writings." Socrates goes on to 
state, in the same passage, that Nectarius communicated 
this advice of Sisinnius to the emperor, who eagerly em 
braced it, and, after he had made the experiment, per 
ceived at length, that the heretics relied " on dialectic skill 
alone, and not on the exposition of the ancients *," since 

(TV(rrr)va.i 5e Aoyois Trepl rov 
$6y/j.aros OVK icrxvcav, a.vayvwffri]v vir 

vcu TTpoeySaAAfTO. HuriwtOS 8e, a 

\\6yi/ULos, Kal Trpay/uLdToof 
aicpiflcas re ei5<i>s ras ruv iep&v ypa(f>u>v 
ep/j.r)veias Kal ra (pi\6(ro(pa ooy/jiara, ffv- 
voiSev us at SmAe|is ou p.6vov ovj( 
kvovfft. TO. (T~)(tff^.a.ra., aAAa yap Kal fyi- 
\ovetKOTfpovs Tas alpfffLS yuaAAoi airep- 
ya.^oi ra.C Kal Sia TOVTO roidvSe nva 
(7U|U.j8o v\)]v Tci3 Ne/crapiaj uTreflero, ?> eiri- 
crTa.^.vos us ot TTccAcuot ap^v inrdp^ews 
TCf vie? rov 0eou Sovvai a-rretpvyov, Ka- 
Ti\.ri(()io-av yap avrbj/ ffvva &iov T< 
TraTpl o~v/j./3ov\fi>i <pvye?v fjikv Tat Sta- 
s /j.dxas pdpTvpas 5e 

ras K?>6<Teis rcov ira.Xa.itav, Kal 
Trapa TOU jSacrtAe ajy rots 
TTpocrdyeo-Qai, TrSrepov \6yov TTOTC iroi- 
ovvrai rS)V irpb TTJS SiaipeVecos ev rfi 
eKK\r)ffia irposap^offa.vr(av (leg. irpo- 
aK^aadvTfav, Vales.) 5i5ao~Kd\cav, ^ us 
a\\orpiovs rov XpiarTLavifffj-ov ivapa- 
KpovovTai. el fjikv yap TOVTOVS aQeTovaiv, 
OVKQVV ava0f/JiaTi^iv avrovs ToAjuarw- 
aav Kal et TOUTO roXfj-rjaai iroir]acacriv t 
virb rov TrX^dovs f^f\a6-f](rovTai. Kal 
rovrov yevo/Aevov, irpotyavrjs fo~rai f) vi- 
Krj rys aA7j0etas. et 5e ^ TrapaKpovov- 
rai rovs apx^ovs rwv SiSacr/caAcoi , ^e- 
rtpov ccrri irapaffx^v T s )8tj8Aovs r&v 
TroAatwr. Socrat. H.E., v. 10. p. 272.] 

they trusted to argument ; and despised the Fathers. 661 

they all refused to stand by the judgment of the primitive CONCLU- 

doctors. The same account is handed down by Sozomen, SION 

Eccl. Hist. vii. 12 ; to which may be added, that Alex 
ander, bishop of Alexandria, asserts that the original de 
fenders of the Arian heresy held the early fathers in no 
esteem, and, like the fanatics and enthusiasts of our days, 
shamelessly boasted that they themselves had been taught 
by revelation. For thus he writes in his epistle to Alexander 
of Constantinople contained in Theodoret h . "They do not 
deign to compare with themselves any even of the ancients, 
nor suffer themselves to be put on a level with those teachers, 
with whom we have been familiar from our boyhood. Nor 
do they think that any one of those, who are now our bre 
thren in the ministry throughout the Church, has attained 
unto any measure of wisdom; saying that they alone are 
wise and possessing nothing/ and discoverers of doctrines, 
and that there have been revealed to them alone things which 
were not of a nature to enter into the thoughts of any other 
person under the sun." In these words Alexander also inti- [804] 
mates that the Arian view was contrary to the doctrine, not of 
the primitive doctors only, but of his own immediate prede 
cessors, and, moreover, of all the bishops who governed the 
Church at the time when Arius first raised his unhappy con 

But, you will ask, if the opinion of Arius was so completely 
heterodox, how could it, in so short a time after it arose, 
prevail to such an extent, as that, as Jerome complained, 
nearly the whole world had become Arian ? My answer is ; 
if to become Arian means to embrace the genuine dogmas 
of Arius, it is not true (with all deference to Jerome be it 
said) that the greater part of Christians ever became Arian. 
In the time of Constantius, indeed, and for some time after, 
very many, especially in the East, received the Arians, but 
very few, comparatively, embraced Arianism itself. For those 
most deceitful meu, except where they found hearers suited 

h ou5e rcDf apxa w rivas ffvyKpiveiv Soy/j-drccv euperat \*yovTfs cTvai, /col 

eauTO?s a^iovffiv, ovSf oTs rifj.f is e /c irai- avrois a.-noKeKa.\vfyQa.i jji6vois, Hirep ov- 

Scav u/aiA-nffafjiev 5t5a<TKaAois, e|i<roDrr0ai Sfvl run/ farb rbv ^\iov ertpcf irctyvitev 

. aAA ouSe T>V vvv iravra^ov c Afle?!/ els tvvoiav. H. E. i. 4. p. 16. 

pylav rivet, fls fierpov <ro<j)ias edit. Valesii. [p. 17-J 
p.6voi (ToQol Kal 

662 Arians were received and accounted Catholic, because 


1 fraude. 


2 plebs 

3 miseris- 
que cre- 


4 ante sae- 
cula, "be 
fore the 

to their purpose, concealed their impious doctrines, and 
generally professed their faith in terms which bore the sem 
blance of the ancient and catholic view; the consequence of 
which was, that they were almost everywhere accounted to 
be catholic, and recognised as such even by those who other 
wise detested from their heart their genuine tenets. By this 
fraudulent conduct 1 they gained the favour, not only of the 
Christian laity, but also of many over-credulous bishops. 
Read the Arian Confessions transcribed by Athanasius a^nd 
others; they are for the most part couched in phrases so 
catholic that you would believe the parties to be simply 
catholic. They call Christ God, very God, yea, very and 
perfect God by nature ; [the statement,] that He is a 
creature, they abominate as impious; and they profess that 
He existed before all worlds. And what do they not say, 
which Catholics have said, except that they omit that one 
expression, " of one substance ?" Hence Hilary, who lived 
when this antichristian system was dominant, congratulated 
the truth, [on the fact,] that the people of Christ remained 
catholic under the Arian bishops, with whom they continued 
in communion. For the laity, in their innocent simplicity 2 , 
accepted with all reverence the prelates whom Constantius 
set over them, little aware of the impiety which these 
cherished in their bosom ; that is to say, they admitted the 
heretics, but their heresy they never embraced, seeing that 
they knew it not to be their heresy. Hilary s words are 
worthy of being quoted here 1 ; "For the purpose > indeed, of 
bringing in Antichrist with less ill-will, and of recommending 
him to the unfortunate people 3 , they attribute to Christ the 
name of God, because this has been attributed to men also. 
They acknowledge Him to be truly the Son of God, because 
in the sacrament of baptism every one is made truly a son 
of God. They confess [that He is] before times and ages 4 , 
which may not be denied of the angels and of the devil. 
Thus they attribute to Christ our Lord those properties only, 
which belong either to the angels, or to ourselves. But that 

1 Verum ad antichristum minori in- mento baptism! vere Dei Filius unus- 

vidia introdueendum, miserisque ere- quisque perficitur. Ante tempora et 

dendura, tribuunt Christo Dei nomen, scecula confitentur, quod de angelis 

quia hoc et hominibus sit tributum. atque Diabolo est non negandum. Ita 

Fatentur vere Dei Filium, quia sacra- Domino Christo sola ilia tribuuntur, 

they prof essed that they were so, and used Catholic language. 663 

which is the legitimate and true [attribute] of Christ [as] CONCLU- 
God, [namely, that] Christ [is] very God, or, in other words, - 
that the divinity of the Son is the same as that of the Father, 
is absolutely denied. And by the fraudulence of this impious 
system it is up to this time 1 brought to pass, THAT NOW UNDER ! usque 


WHICH is [THE MEANING] OF THEIR WORDS 2 . They hear that 2 vocisesse. 
Christ is God; they think that He is what He is said to be : 
they hear that He is the Son of God ; they suppose that in the 
being begotten of God is 3 involved the being true God 4 : they 3 in Dei 
hear [that He was] before [all~\ times; they think that thatjjjjj*^ 
is before [all] times, which is always. THE EARS OF THE tatem. 


These are the admirable words of Hilary. Further, Alexan- [806] 
der, bishop of Alexandria, in the epistle to his namesake of 
Byzantium k , which I mentioned just now, witnesses that 
Arius and his first disciples, after they had been condemned 
by the bishops of Egypt in a council at Alexandria which pre 
ceded the Nicene council, betook themselves to other catholic 
bishops; and, by pretending that they also were Catholics, 
procured from them commendatory letters, which they em 
ployed from time to time to confirm in error the miserable 
men whom they had deceived. " They attempted," he says, 
" travelling about to create a prejudice 5 against us, to go out 5 
of their way 6 to our brethren in the ministry, who are of one 
mind with ourselves, professing, indeed, in pretence, to ask for 
peace and unity, but in reality using all endeavours to carry excursions 
away some of them by fair speeches to their own poisonous u J"j u 
error; requesting also from them wordy letters 7 , in order that 6 irapeK- 


7 <TT(afji.v\(t>- 

quae sunt vel angelorum propria, vel ante tcmpora esse, quod semper est. Tf p a ypdjj.- 

nostra. Caeterum quod Deo Christo SANCTIORES AURES PLEBIS, QUAM 

legitimum et verum est, Christus Deus CORDA SUNT SACERDOTUM. Lib. cont. 

verus, id est, eadem esse Filii quae Arian. et Auxent. p. 215. [ 6. p. 

Patris divinitas, denegatur. Et hujus 1266.] 

quidem usque adhuc impietatis fraude k eTrex f l P n (raj/ 8e irfpi8poiJ.cus xp^^- 

perficitur, UT JAM SUB ANTICHRISTI voi naO TJ/J.UV, 7rapeK/3aiVeiv irpbs rovs 


ESSE, QUOD vocis EST. Audiunt Deum pevoi rb Se a\t]9es, (rvvapiraffai TWO.? 

Christum ; putant esse quod dicitur : airrwv els TTJV I8iav v6aov Sia xP"n ffTO ~ 

audiunt Filium Dei; putant in Dei \oyias ffirov8doi>Tts. nai (rTO)/xi/AcjTcpa 

nativitate inesse Dei veritatem : audi- ypdfifitvra trap avruu alrovvres, (va. -jra- 

unt ante tempora ; putant id ipsum pavaytvuffKovrfs avra TO?$ VTT O.VTWI> 

664 The arts used by the Arians to pass themselves for Catholics. 

CONCLU- by reading these to such as they had deceived, they may 
make them obstinate 1 in their errors, and hardened 2 in im- 
pi^y, as though they had bishops who took the same 
- side, and were of one mind with them. For they do not con 
fess to them what they wrongly taught and practised amongst 
us, on account of which also they were put out of our com 
munion ; but either pass them over in silence, or by veiling 
them in feigned sayings and writings mislead men. Their 

3 /B/ioAJ- pernicious doctrine they cloak under plausible and winning 3 
speeches, and so carry away with them whosoever lies exposed 
to their fraud, not abstaining from calumniating our religious 
belief to all; whence it happens that some have subscribed 
[807] their letters, and admitted them into the Church." Should 
any of the Arian tribe, however, doubt the good faith of the 
excellent Alexander, let him hear two very noted partisans of 
Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis. These men, in 
their Recantation contained in Socrates 1 , write that they 
had indeed subscribed the Nicene Creed, but had been un 
willing to subscribe the anathema; and immediately add 
this as their reason; "Not," say they, "that we find fault 
with the Creed; but because we believe that the accused 
party is not such [as he is represented ;] being fully persuaded 
that he is not such, from his private communications to us, 
both by letters, and by personal discussions." And what 
Valesius has observed is worthy of notice, that this Eusebius 
of Nicomedia retained communion with the Church of Rome, 
even to the time of his death. From which one of these 
[808] conclusions must needs follow, either that Eusebius was not 
really an Arian, but had joined himself to that side simply 
from excessive credulity, which induced him to credit the 
professions of the Arians; or that, being an Arian, he had 

s, a/j.eTavor)TOvs e</> ofs ecrcpd- Trapa iraffi (rvKotyavrziv TT/J> 

Ayycrcw Karaa Kevdfao iv, firiTpipo/u.ei ous V(T/3eiaV oQtv /cat (rv(J.fiaivei rivas TO"IS 

fls afffBeiav, ws Uv crv/uul/ htyous avrols ypdfj./ji.aa iv avT&v viroypa<pot>Tas, ets e/c- 

Kal 6/j.6(ppoi/as ex oi/Tes eTrtcr/coTrous. oi>x. K\t}<r iav eiVSe xecrflat. ApudTheodorit. 

aVep yovv nap TJ/JUV Trovrjpus e8i 5aai/ E. H. i. 4. p. 10. edit. Valesii. 

re Kal Sieirpd^avTO, bfJioKoyovffiv avrols, l ovx &s TTJS ir to-reus KaTriyopovvres, 

8i 5 & /cat e^dtHTdrjaav a\\ ^ cnwirrj ravra aAA us aTrtarovvres TOLOVTOP ?vai rbv 

irapaSiSoacriv, ^ TTCTrAatr/ievots \6yois KOL KaTfiyopridevTa, e/c T&V t Sia irpbs 

fyypd^ois eTrtcr/cia^ o^Tes airaTutaiv. Tret- Trap avrov Sta re tniffToXSiv, KOI ruiv fls 

6avit)Tpcus yovv KOI fia/j.o\6xois o/xtAiats Trp^rrcDTrov SiaAe|ewi , TreTr^potyoprj/Azvoi 

rr/i/ (fidopoTroibv O.VTUV SiSa<TKa\iav ein- /j.i] TOIOVTOV tlvou. [Hist. Eccles. i. 

Kpvirroi/TGS, (rvvapird^ovaiv r})v fls and- 14. p. 43. J 
Tt]v ttUulfttVOV, OVK aTrex^/we^oi KO) TOV 

Anus deceitful subscription. 665 

deceived the Church of Rome by the same arts as the other CONCLU- 

Arians used. That the latter is by far the more probable SION< 

will be the opinion of every one who attentively reads the 
letter of Arius to Eusebius, and that of Eusebius himself to 
Paulinus of Tyre, contained in Theodoret m . But every one 
must be horror-stricken at the history which Socrates relates 
of Arius from an authentic letter of Constantine in his Ec- 
cles. Hist., i. 38 n ? " The emperor;" he says, " wishing to make 
trial of Arius, sent for him to his palace, and asked him 
whether he agreed with the definitions of the Nicene coun 
cil. Thereupon he, readily and without any hesitation, sub 
scribed, in the emperor s presence, what had been denned re 
specting the faith, sophistically. Then the emperor, surprised, 
administered an oath to him ; and he also took this sophis 
tically. Now the way in which he craftily subscribed, as I 295 
heard, was this; Arius, it is said, wrote down the opinion which 
he held on paper, and carried it under his arm ; he then swore 
that he really believed just as he had written. It is from 
report that I write that it was done in this way, but that he 
added an oath also to his subscription I have read in the 
emperor s letters." Surely it ought to surprise no one that [809] 
such detestable perjury was soon followed by that signal in 
stance of Divine vengeance, which Socrates relates in the 
same passage. The account is given by other ecclesiastical 
writers also, though with some difference of circumstances. 

Athanasius, in his work on the councils of Ariminum and 
Seleucia, asserts that George, bishop of Laodicea, was the first 
to advise the Arians to cloak their heresy under the same 
phrases which the Catholics employed. Of this George he 
says , "He wrote to the Arians, Why do you find fault with 
the Pope Alexander, when he says that the Son is of the 
Father? Since you yourselves also need not be afraid to 

m H. E. i. 5 and 6. ravra Karaypd^as, (p-rjfflv, 6 "Apetos eV 

11 6 jScNTtAeus 5e air6Treipav Apet ou ^(dprr) V e?xe 86av, inrb ,uaA7js ecpepeV 

iroi-ficraffQai j8ouA7j0eb, eitl TCI &affi\eia &fj.vv re aAT?0a)s O#TO> (ftpove tv, us Kal 

avrbv fJieraTrf/jLirerai, r/pwra re, el ro7s yeypa^Kcas efty. rovro pev o$v ovrw 

fipois (TTOtx 6 ^ T ^) s & Ni/caia avv6Sov. 6 yeyevTJffQai, aKorj ypdtyas ex w ^ Tl M /l/ 

Se eroifj-cas /urjSei/ /xeAATjaas eV avrov roi Kal 6pKov eire6r)Ke rots ypa(pe"i<nv, e 

VTreypa<pe ra irepl TTJS triarews dpiaOevra roav eiriaroXiov rov j8a<nAe a>s aj/eAea- 

ffo(pi(rd/J.evo5. Kal 6 p.ev jSacriAeus 6av- p.r)v. [Socrates, H. E. i. 38.] 

/j.dffas Kal opKov etretyepev 6 Se Kal trpbs Se rovs Apetavovs eypatpe, Ti 

TOUTO ffotpifyfj.ei os eTToifi. riua Se rp6- fj.ffJL(pea0e AAe|a^5fjaj T(ji5 irdna Keyovn 

nov eTfxvd&TO ypd(pa>i ,ust)Kov(Ta,fori IK rov Tlarpbs ibv vl6v ; Kal yap Kal 

666 Those who, holding the true doctrine, objected to enforcing 

CONCLU- say that the Son is of God. For, since the Apostle has 
ON< written, that all things are of God, and it is plain that all 

OVT (t)V. 

OVK things are made out of nothing 1 , and the Son also is a created 
being and one of the [things] made, the Son also may be 
said to be of God, just as all things are said to be of God. 
From him then the Arians learned to use hypocritically the 
expression of God/ and to utter the expression indeed, but 
not to mean aright." 

[810] Their most specious pretext, however, the Arians appezyr to 
have derived from the expression " of one substance" (6//,o- 
ovcrios), which the Nicene fathers sanctioned ; for it was the 
complaint of these sophists, that they had been condemned 
by the Nicene fathers for refusing to admit one single word, 
which was nowhere to be found in Scripture, and which also 
admitted of dangerous meanings; though in other respects 
they had in nothing departed from the ancient and catholic 
faith. This profession of theirs was readily believed by many, 
not only of the laity but of the catholic bishops, who there 
upon freely gave them the right hand of Christian fellowship 
and communion ; and even turned away from those catholic 
bishops, who, being aware of the treacherous conduct of the 
Arians, adhered closely to the expression " of one substance," 
regarding them either as contentious men, given to dispute 
about words, who had for a slight cause disturbed the peace 
of the Church; or even as heterodox, who were concealing 
an heretical opinion under the word. But yet all, who, for 
whatever reason, rejected the expression " of one substance," 
were commonly classed without exception among the Arian 
party, even although they from the heart allowed (as the 
large majority of them did) the catholic meaning which the 
Nicene fathers intended by the expression. It was for this 
reason chiefly, I conceive, that Eusebius of Csesarea was by 
most persons taken to be an Arian ; namely, because, although 
he never absolutely disallowed the expression " of one sub 
stance," but rather always approved of it in the sense in 

v/J.e is ft}} (fiofirjdriTe flrrfTv, /cat GK rov Ae^erat e /c rov eoC. e| eice ivov yovv 

eov rbv viov. el yap 6 airoffroXos eypa- H/jLaQav ol ret, Apeiov fypovovvrss viroKpi- 

ij/e, To 5e TTdWa e/c rov eov, Kal fo~n vecrQa.1 r^v Ae|tj/, rfyv, K rov eov, KOI 

SfjAoi/, e| OVK OVTOW TTfTToirjcrdai TO. TTO.V- \4ytiv fj.V T^V Aeiv, /nr) (ppove iv Se Ka 

ra, fern 5e /cat 6 vlbs Krifffjia, nal T&V Aa>s. Oper. Athan. i. p. 887. [ 17. 

JTiroirtfJ.fvcav cTs, Ac^^en? ay /cal 6 vlbs vol. i. p. 731.] 
e;c TOV eov, OVTUS Sxrirep Kal ra iravra 

the expression "of one substance" were classed with Arians. 667 

which it was used by the Nicene fathers, yet he publicly CONCLU 
opposed Eustathius and other Catholics of great reputation, SION 
who he thought employed the expression in support of Sa- 
bellianism. See what we observed before out of Socrates 
[i. 8.], in book ii. 1. 8. [p. 63.] What is to be said of the [811] 
fact, that the emperor Constantius himself, who was a most 
inveterate enemy of those who maintained the homoousion, 
is expressly declared by Theodoret, Eccles. Hist. iii. 3, to have 
been always in reality catholic. "For although," he saysP, 
" Constantius, deceived by those who influenced him, did not 
admit the expression of one substance/ yet he sincerely 1 ac- 
knowledged the sense of it, for he called God the Word 2 the 
genuine Son, begotten of the Father before all worlds, and 
plainly condemned those who dare to say He was a creature." 
This testimony of Theodoret about Constantius receives no 
little confirmation from the high encomiums which are be 
stowed on the same emperor by Gregory Nazianzen in his first 
Invective against Julian, where, amongst other appellations, 
he calls him 1 " a most divine prince and most full of love 296 
for Christ." These commendations surely would never have 
been heaped on Constantius by Nazianzen, who was a man 
most catholic, and an avowed enemy of the Arians, if he had 
thought that the emperor had really imbibed the Arian 
heresy. To this it may be added, that the confessions of 
faith, which the Arians published in their councils 3 , under 3 concilia- 
Constantius, most of them contain the same faith, as far 
as words go, which the Nicene council had sanctioned, ex 
cept that they omit the expression "of one substance." No 
doubt the sophists well knew, that the pious and catholic 
feelings of the emperor would never have been able to en 
dure their impious conceits, if they had been put forward 
simply and without colouring. Thus he who was the chief [812] 
patron of the Arian party, always from his heart abhorred 
the genuine tenets of Arias; and again he who was the 
most bitter persecutor of the Catholics, always himself re- 

P et yap Kal rov 6/j.oov<riov rb Trpdff- \6yov oW,ua"e, Kal rovs Krlffpa \ey- 

p-npa PovKoXyQels virb rwv a"y6vr<av fiv roXpuvras avriKpvs airfK-hpvrre. 

avrbv 6 K.wvo rdi Tios ov irpoffiero, rfyv [Theod. H. E. iii. 3. p. 124.] 

yovv rovrov Sidvoiav aKpaityvus w/j.o\6- q . . . 5 0et<$Tcrre jScunAeW, teal <t)i\o- 

7t. yvfaiov yap vibv irpb rwv alwvwv xP l(rr ^ Ta T - P- 63. [Orat. iv. 34. p. 

tic rov Tlarpbs yeyeviniiJ.svov rbv ebv 93. ] 

668 The emperor Constantius not himself an Arian* 

CONCLU- tained a belief and opinion truly catholic. The appearance 
- indeed of this so great a prodigy in the Christian world was 
produced by the fraudulent conduct of the Arians, which 
good men can never sufficiently detest. This fraud is in 
some measure exposed by Elias Cretensis in his commentary 
on the orations of Gregory Nazianzen in the following 
words r ; "The emperor, drawn away by heretics, gave full 
license to the impious against the pious, and enacted laws 
against the orthodox doctrine ; for when the Arians ,with 
craft and malignity introduced the expression equisubstan 
tial" (for thus Elias renders the Greek word opoiovaios, 
like in substance/) " instead of consubstantial, the emperor 
himself gave in to their opinion, and wrote to the effect 
that equisubstantial was identical with consubstantial, and 
that it caused no detriment to godliness. This indeed is 
certainly no way alien from right doctrine, (for that which 
is like, is not the same as that unto which it is like, but is 
partly equal and partly unequal,) provided it be piously un 
derstood, that is, in such a way that together with the word 
[equisubstantial,] there be also understood these words, 
without any diversity at all/ Hence the heretics hav 
ing obtained a free opportunity reject the word consub 
stantial" &c. If, however, I were to set forth fully the 
crafty artifices which the Arians employed to propagate 
their heresy, this conclusion of my work would swell into 
another book. Therefore I make an end here : From all 
that we have discussed in this treatise it is clear that the 

Jud. ver. 3. Nicene Creed is " the faith which was once delivered to the 
saints," and therefore, evermore, to be religiously preserved 
[813] in the Catholic Church of Christ. For this faith, therefore, 
let us earnestly contend, as becomes men inflamed with zeal 
for God ; and in it let us continue with unwavering perse 
verance to the last breath of life. And this may God grant. 


r p. 823. 



ON BOOK I. CHAPTER II. 2. p. 36. 



1. THE pre- existence of the Son of God before the foundation of 
the world is firmly established by Dr. Bull in this chapter, by several 
testimonies of Barnabas and Hernias. He has, however, found an op 
ponent in a writer, who, under an assumed name, if I am not mistaken, 
published a treatise in London in the year 1697, in 8vo., entitled a , 
" The faith of the primitive Christians, demonstrated out of Barna 
bas, Hermas, and Clement of Rome, in opposition to The defence of 
the Nicene Creed, by Dr. George Bull; by Luke Mellier, V.D.M." 
As he endeavours in this work to evade the several testimonies, 
which are adduced out of the afore-mentioned apostolical fathers, in 
this and the .succeeding book, and the arguments founded on them, 
it will not, I trust, be unwelcome to the reader, if I examine his 
principal answers, and shew briefly how frivolous most of them are. 

2. As respects, then, the passage first quoted above ( 2) b out of the 
Epistle of Barnabas, chap. 5, in which he states that it was said to 
Christ our Lord " on the day before the foundation of the world, Let 
Us make man after Our own image and likeness," Mellier advances 
three arguments against it. 1. That Barnabas quoted these words 
only in a mystical sense, in respect of that new creation made through 
Christ in the last times. 2. That he attributed these words, not to 
God conversing with His Son, but to the scripture prophesying re 
specting Christ. 3. Granting that Barnabas represented God Him- 

a [" Fides prirnorum Christianorum Nicaenae, D. Georgii Bulli opposita, 
ex Barnaba, Herma, et, Clemente Ro- Auctore Luca Melliero, V. D. M.] 
inano demonstrata, Defensioni Fidei b [See above, p. 37, note i.] 




1 non m- 
juste [OUK 

670 The words, Let Us make man, fyc., refer to the visible 

self as saying those words to His Son in the old creation, that yet 
he explained them only in a prophetic sense, as referring to the 
future Christ, and by no means as applying to the Son then really 
existing and present [with God.] The first point Mellier supports out 
of chap. 6, where he contends that these words are explained only of 
the new creation, and, therefore, will have it that they are to be mys 
tically understood in the preceding chapter also. But supposing this, 
without, however, allowing it, his conclusion by no means follows : for 
Barnabas may certainly have quoted the same passage in one place 
in a literal, and in another in a mystical sense ; and that he has tlone 
this, I gather from the fact that in chap. 5, about which the question 
is raised, Barnabas does not simply say that the words, " Let us make 
man after our image," &c., were spoken to the Son, but that this was 
done " on the day before the foundation of the world." But it was 
the old, not the new creation, of which he was then treating. I am 
therefore fully persuaded that Barnabas had the former, not the latter, 
in view. But though I admitted a mystical signification in this place 
also, yet this is founded on the literal sense ; and, therefore, Barnabas 
could not have expounded the text in question as applying to the Son, 
as it were in respect of the new creation, unless he supposed that they 
had been spoken by God the Father to Him at the old creation. 

3. "By God the Father," I say; for the exception which Mellier 
makes in his second argument, that it was not God but the Scrip 
ture, which said these words to Christ, is altogether frivolous ; 
and one may well set against him his own words, p. 5 ; "It is 
manifest that God spoke these words on the sixth day, before 
the completion of the world, which took place on the seventh 
day." Let us, however, hear his argument ; " For thus," says he, 
"does [Barnabas] write before, in chap. 4, p. 16 b , For the 
Scripture saith, Woe unto them that be wise in their own con 
ceits. And in chap. 5, p. 20 c , It (meaning the same Scrip 
ture) says thus, He was wounded for our iniquities. Again It 
(clearly the same Scripture) declares, Not unjustly 1 are the nets 
spread for the birds. And then immediately To whom [it] 
(meaning of course the same Scripture) said before the foundation 
of the world, " &c. But this is what I deny utterly; for the pre 
ceding passages are not parallel, inasmuch as they contain declara 
tions made by the prophets concerning others in the third person, 
(to use the grammatical term,) and not the words of one person to 

b Dicit enim Scriptura, Vee illis, qui 
sibi solis intelligunt, cap. 4. p. 16. fp. 
59, 60.] 

c Dicit autem sic. Vulneratus est 

propter iniquitates nostras. . . . Dicit 
autem, Non injuste tenduntur retia avi- 
bus. ... Cui dixit ante constitutionem 
seculi &c. cap. 5. p. 20. [p. 60.] 

creation ; were spoken by God the Father to the Son. 671 
another in the first person ; as is this of God the Father to the Son, ON BOOK i, 

PH 9 & 9 

which is cited, not " immediately," or consecutively, but after an in- 
terval of two sentences, " Let Us make man," &c. Now that these B ^ s ARN 
words were said by the Scripture, to the Son, and that on the sixth 
day of the creation of the world, would have been, if not a most ab 
surd, yet a most inexact expression ; and [even] granting this, still 
that passage would altogether have to be explained from the[sixth chap 
ter d of this same epistle, where he says ; " For the Scripture says con 
cerning us, as He" (namely God the Father) " says to the Son, Let 
Us make man in Our own image and after Our own likeness. " Mellier 
indeed supposes in p. 8, that the words, a>s Xeyet TO> ina>, "As He says to 
the Son/ which are wanting in the old Latin translation of Barnabas, 
" were introduced into the Greek text by some sciolist, and that they 
are clearly superfluous ; because Barnabas, after quoting other words, 
Be fruitful and multiply, himself adds, these words [He spake] to 
the Son/ What need then," he asks, " was there for his here say 
ing, As He says to the Son ? " But I reply, that those words also, [63] 
TO.VTO. Trpbs rbv vibv, " these words [He spake] to the Son/ do not ap 
pear in the old translation," as he himself remarks at p. 9 ; and that 
they ought certainly to be expunged, as well on the authority of the 
old translation as from the case itself requiring it. For the words " Be 
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth," Moses declares, Gen. i. 
28, were spoken by God to our first parents, as the plural number of 
itself shews. Who then would suppose that Barnabas was so ab 
surd as to say that the words in question were addressed to the 
Son, a Person of the singular number ? And indeed the expression, 
" these words to the Son," (ravra Trpbs TOV vibv,) is very much like a 
marginal note, whereby some one wished to remind us, that Barnabas 
referred to the Son the words which God spoke, " Let us make man," 
&c., Moses not having expressly stated to whom they were spoken. 
Afterwards this gloss was by some ignorant scribe introduced into 
the text, and that in the wrong place. But allowing that Barnabas 
had actually himself subjoined to the Divine blessing on our first pa 
rents, which has been quoted, " Be fruitful, and multiply," the words, 
" These words [He spake] to the Son," ravra npbs rbv vibv, yet that 
other clause, $ Aey r&> vf<3, " as He says to the Son," placed before 
those other words of God, " Let Us make man in Our own image," 
quoted in another paragraph, would not have been at all superfluous. 
For St. Barnabas writing this epistle against Jews, (on whom you may 

d A 761 yap 7) ypa(p^ -rrepl TJ/J.WV, ws tinues, Kal elire Kvpios, iScaf rb 

Xeyei T$ vly, Tron tvo/AW /car cfcJra, /cat trXaff^a, ai>6pviroV av^dveffdf, 

KO.Q dfjioiaa- iv rifi&v T^V foGpuiroV [ital TaDra irpbs riv vi6v. P-.19.] 
/c.r.A..; the passage con- 

672 The correct readings of the text of St. Barnabas. 

APPENDIX, consult Justin Martyr s Dialogue with Trypho, p. 285 e ,) declared 
GRABE S that God the Father spoke those words to the Son. And when, after 
introducing a sentence of his own, he quoted another of the sayings 
of God in this wise, " And the Lord beholding our form that it was 
good, said, Be fruitful, and multiply, " &c., there was no reason 
why he should not add the observation, that these words also, 
though spoken to our first parents, pertained notwithstanding to the 
Son. But, as I have already observed, this would have been absurd 
in St. Barnabas to do ; and, consequently, it must be absolutely laid 
down, that the words, ravra irpbs rbv vibv, have crept into the Greek 
text, from the circumstance which we have suggested, or some other. 
But on the contrary, the clause <as- Aeya T via does not seem to have 
been added to the Greek by a sciolist, but to have been left out of the 
Latin, either by the translator, or an ignorant transcriber, because the 
repetition of the verb "says" in so short a sentence, "for scripture 
says of us, as He says to the Son," seemed to him a tautology. Let 
it then be considered a settled point, that Barnabas was not so ab 
surd as to attribute the words, "Let Us make man in Our own image," 
to the Scripture speaking to the Son, but to God the Father, (by 
[64] whom Moses in his account of the primitive creation makes them to 
have been spoken,) although he did not make express mention of His 
name, leaving that to be understood by his reader as a very well-known 
point, just as he has done in other passages. But after all, suppose, 
Mellier, that Barnabas in both places did write, that the " Scripture 
said to the Son, * Let Us make man after Our own image, " yet no 
person, unless he either be himself, or imagine Barnabas to have 
been, a very foolish person, would take it as meaning any thing else, 
than that " Scripture records that God the Father said to the Son, 
Let Us make, " &c. For his explanation that Scripture spake to 
the Son concerning the Son, is so strained as to be unworthy of re 
futation ; and by reason of the former clause, where it is said to have 
taken place the day before the completion of the world, is so absurd, 
that a man must be supposed to be mad, who should say that Scrip 
ture proclaimed any thing concerning the Son, at a time when it 
was not as yet in existence. Having then dismissed this second 
objection, I proceed to the discussion of the third. 

4. Our opponent then, allowing that Barnabas represented God 
as addressing the words, " Let us make man," &c., to His Son, pre 
tends nevertheless that he believed that they were addressed to 
Christ as future, and not as then actually existing ; so that the clause, 
"To whom God spake," simply denotes, "Whom having in His 

e [62. p. 159.] 

The words could not have been said typically to Christ. 673 

mind and thinking on, He said," as he explains in p. 13. " For," ON BOOK r. 
he says in that passage, " [Barnabas] at the end of chap. 6, asserts CH 2< 2> 
that God spoke the words, Be ye fruitful and multiply, and have BARNA - 
dominion over the beasts of the field, to us Christians as well. But 
who will suppose that Christians were present and existing when 
God spoke these words to them ?" Our opponent, however, who 
is accustomed on all occasions to quote the very words of St. 
Barnabas, has here somewhat artfully omitted them. They are the 
following f ; "And He had said before, Let them be fruitful, and 
have dominion over the fish of the sea. " In these words the 
Apostle does not assert that God said to us Christians, " Be fruitful, 
and multiply ;" but that He foretold of us that we should increase 
and have dominion over the creatures. And these are two very 
different things. But even if St. Barnabas had written, that God 
in blessing our first parents 1 had said to us, "Be ye fruitful and J protoplas- 
multiply," yet even that would not have made any thing for the 
point. For our first parents were a type of us, and consequently [65] 
whatever God spoke to them, might well have been said to have 
been typically said to us. But there was no one in the primitive 
creation that represented Christ, to whom the Father in respect of 
the new creation could say in a figure, "Let us make man," &c. ; 
and therefore Barnabas believed that Christ Himself was then pre 
sent with His Father, otherwise it would have been unsuitable, nay, 
most absurd, for him to have written, that God said to Him, " Let 
us make man," &c. Nor are the other passages, which Mellier, p. 
14, has quoted from Barnabas, of the same kind with the passage in 
question. For the commands which God uttered through the prophets 
altogether pertained, not only to those who were then present, but 
to others also who should come after them, and " were written for 
our use," Romans xv. 4 ; and therefore Barnabas might with truth 
say, that God had spoken them to us. But every one must perceive 
that the case of the words, " Let us make man," &c., is wholly dif 
ferent. I pass over the other examples, which are adduced before 
and after by Mellier, for the sake of brevity ; for they either make 
little or nothing for his purpose, or are undeserving of a reply. 

5. I proceed, therefore, to vindicate from the charge of corruption 
the following passage of Barnabas, which is cited by Dr. Bull , 
in which he states that the Sun is " the work of His hands," (epyw 
Xeip&v avrov,) that is of the Son s, of whom he is there speaking. Mel 
lier, p. 18, objects, that the old Latin translator rendered the words 

1 irpoeipriKe 8e firdvw, 2n au|aj/eV0a>- [See the passage cited above, p. 

aav /cat ap^fTcatrav TUV l-^Qixav. [p. 37. note k.J 


674 The Son " the work of His hands*" Reading genuine ; 

APPENDIX, opus manus Dei, (" the work of God s hand,") and that accordingly he 
GRABE S had read in the Greek x fL P* eeo{} - But, 1. supposing that the old 
NOTES. [Latin] translator had read it thus, still it does not follow that St. 
Barnabas wrote so ; since it is clear, from many passages, that he 
used a corrupt and defective copy, or that his own work is shame 
fully corrupted and mutilated. Why then may not this have also 
happened in the place before us ? Nay indeed, 2. Mellier himself 
admits that the Latin version in this place is mutilated. Why then 
does he not rather correct and restore to integrity his own most cor- 
1 mentcm. rupted opinion *, and the imperfect Latin version at the same time, 
from the perfect text of the [original] Greek. Moreover, that the Latin 
version, " the work of God s hand," (opus manus Dei,} is corrupted, 
rather than the Greek text, [" the work of His hands"], I prove from 
the circumstance, that " the work of God s hands" is frequently found 
in Holy Scripture, whereas " the work of God s hand," in the singular 
number, scarcely occurs there : and that in the place of manuum ejus, 
(the syllable us being either written over the word in an abbre 
viated form, or erased,) manus Dei might have been read more easily 
and afterwards written, than ^etpwv avruv made out of ^etpos $eou. 
[66] But, 3. and lastly, supposing for argument s sake, without how 
ever allowing, that Barnabas wrote 6cov not avrov, still even thus 
a very strong argument for the Divinity of Christ might be formed 
out of his words. For in that case his reasoning would be as fol 
lows : If men have not power to gaze on the light of the sun 
with their eyes, though it be but the work of God s hands, or a 
creature, much less would they have been able to endure the sight of 
Christ, if He had not come in the flesh. But this argument would 
2 insulsum have been without any points, if Christ, just as the sun, had been the 
foret. work of God s hands, or a creature. Not as a creature then, but as 


the Creator, did St. Barnabas regard Christ, apart from the flesh . 
carnem. And perhaps our opponent saw this, and on that account in the pre 
ceding words of this passage he substitutes /SXeTrozres 0e6i> (seeing 
God) for fiXcTTovres avrov (seeing Him [Christ]), and insists, page 19, 
that it is God the Father who is here to be understood, and that not 
only without any reason or authority, (for the Latin version does not 
help him in this place, being mutilated, and having nothing answering 
to these words,) but even contrary to all reason and to St. Barnabas 
own meaning. For in those words, " How could men be healed 
when they looked on Him ?" he manifestly intimates, that it is of 
seeing the Son, not the Father, that he is there speaking, and 
specially has in view the figure of the brazen serpent, which he had 
explained more fully in chap. 12, expressly calling it "a type of 
the Saviour," (TVTTOV TOV "irja-ov) ; inasmuch as, " although it was 

illustrated by other passages. 675 

itself without life," as Christ became upon the cross, yet "could it ON BOOK i. 
heal others," and " he would immediately be healed" (*ai CH " ^ " 

<ra>6r)<reTai) , i.e. whosoever looked upon it : just as here " How could 
men have been healed who looked upon Him ?" (nS>s av eVo)^- 
<rav av6p(DTrot, ol /SAeTroi/res avrov,). Mellier therefore was wrong in 
changing the last word of this sentence into Geoi/, and the charge of 
corrupting the words of St. Barnabas, which he has, page 20, in 
considerately brought against the othodox, recoils upon his own 
head. I might have shewn at greater length the absurdity of the 
reading and of the interpretation which Mellier brought forward in 
that place, but I refrain for brevity s sake ; and on that account with 
respect to another passage of St. Barnabas, chap. 12, viz. : "all things 
are in Him and unto Him," that is Christ, (ev avra KOI els auroi/), I 
answer in three words only, that the exposition of it brought forward 
by our opponent in page 22 is altogether forced; viz. "That all 
types and prophecies of this sort were fulfilled in Him, and unto Him 
and for His sake were instituted." In confirmation of this view he 
has not adduced a single passage either of Barnabas or of any other 
sacred writer ; I, however, in explanation of Barnabas text touching 
"the creation and preservation of all things by and unto Him," [67] 
allege the words of St. Paul, which are completely parallel, Coloss. 
i. 16: "By 1 Him were all things created;" and again, "All things i <?. 
were created by Him and for 8 Him :" and in verse 17, " By 3 Him all 2 els. 
things consist." Thus splendid and full "have you the glory 
Jesus h ," which the insidious Socinian impiously obscured and re 
strained within more narrow limits than it behoved. 



WITH a view to pervert the passage of Hernias, wherein he says 
that " the Son of God is more ancient than every creature 1 ," Mellier, 
after the example of Zwicker, adduces other words of the same writer 
in book i. vision 2; where he says of the Church, that "she was 
created first of all i ;" that is, according to his own explanation, " she 
was at the first decreed and predestined by God :" in which sense he 
conceives that Christ also is said to be " more ancient than every 

h [Referring to the words of St. Et dixit mihi: ecclesia Dei est. 

Barnabas, c. 12. p. 40. ex ets Ka ^ * v Et dixi ad illum : <l uare er S a . nus 

TOVTC? T^V Ut,av TOV It}(rov.] est? Quoniam, inquit, omnium 

1 [See the passage quoted above, p. prima creata est, ideo anus; et propter 

46, note o.] illam mundus factus est. 4. p. 78.] 

J [The passage referred to is this : 

x x2 

676 Christ said to be earlier than the world-, not figuratively . 


APPENDIX, creature." But whatever be determined respecting this passage, it is 
GRABE S certain, that in our author we are to understand not a Son of God 
predestinated, but already actually existing, for Hermas adds that 
" He was present in council with His Father, to frame the creation." 
Was He, however, present as a Counsellor with God the Father in 
the creation of the world, who as yet was not, nor existing in re- 
rum natura? Absurd! And what Mellier, page 31, imagines, is 
altogether removed from the meaning of Hermas, and forced, that 
the Son is therefore said to have been present in council with the 
Father for the creation of the world, "because the Father, at the 
time when He set Himself to create all things, had His future Son 
in His mind and all- wise counsel." But the genuine meaning of 
those words of Hermas respecting the Church, that "she was 
created first of all, and is therefore an aged woman ; and for her 
sake the world was made," seems to me to be suggested by a passage 
quite parallel in book i. 28, of the Recognitions of the pseudo- 
Clement k ; " But after all these," (the works of the five days,) " He 
made man, for whose sake He had prepared all things : whose 
inner nature 1 " (i. e. his soul or spirit) "is more ancient, and on 
whose account all things which are were made." Here, as Co- 
telerius has rightly remarked, he suggests the pre-existence of 
souls before the formation of the body. And Hermas also seems to 
have believed this, and on that account to have said that the Church, 
as being a congregation and communion, not so much of bodies, as 
of faithful souls, is more ancient than every creature. But this is 
enough about this writer at present. 




ON BOOK II. CHAP. 2. 1. 


1. LUKE MELLIER, whom we have before referred to in these notes, 
with the view of destroying the force of the argument derived by 
Dr. Bull from St. Barnabas epistle, chap, vi. 1 , in defence of the Divi 
nity of Christ, contends, in page 22, &c., that by " the Lord," whose 
holy temple the habitation of our heart is there said to be, we are to 
understand, not Christ, but God the Father, and accordingly he quotes 
the preceding words of the epistle, to this effect m ; " The Lord saith, 

k [Post haec autem omnia, bominem 
fecit, propter quern cuncta praeparave- 
rat ; cujus interna species est antiquior, 
et ob cujus causam omnia quse sunt, 

facta sunt. p. 499.] 

1 [The passage is cited above p. 
86, note i.] 

Kvptos I5ov iroi^aca TO. 

f The Lord, in St. Barnabas, cited by Bull, is the Son. 677 

c Behold I make the last as the first. With a view to this, therefore, N BOOKII. 
the prophet proclaimed, Enter ye into the land, which floweth with -^ - _ - 
milk and honey, and have dominion over it. Behold, then, we are ARNA " 

^ B AS. 

formed anew, as He saith again in another prophet : * Behold, saith 
the Lord, I will take from them (that is, from them whom the 
Spirit of the Lord foresaw,) hearts of stone, and I will put into 
them hearts of flesh, because He was about to be manifested in 
the flesh, and to dwell in us." In these words Mellier all along 
understands God the Father under the title of the Lord, and ac 
cordingly in what immediately follows also, for the habitation of 
our heart is a temple to the Lord, explains the word Lord of God the 
Father. This interpretation however is absurd in both cases. For 
the very connexion of the text and the particle yap will suggest to 
any unprejudiced reader, at the very first sight, that the habitation 
(KaTOiKrjTrjpLoi/) of our heart is said to be the temple of the same per 
son, who before, without one intervening word, was declared to be 
about to dwell in us, (e /ueAAey ev r^lv KctToiKelv.) But that this is Christ 
manifest in the flesh is most clear, and is not denied by our oppo 
nent. Hence, to make the text, when explained in his sense, cohe 
rent, he inserted between the clause, about to dwell in us/ and 
the words next following, a holy temple for the Lord, &c., these 
words by way of paraphrase ; " And by that appearing of His in the 
flesh, and by His indwelling in us, about to make out of us a temple 
and sanctuary for God the Father." But for one to dwell any where [125] 
himself, and to prepare a dwelling for another, are altogether different 
things, which Mellier in his paraphrase wrongly confounds; and, 
whereas Barnabas is only speaking of the former, Mellier, of his 
own devising, puts the latter in addition, nay in actual opposition to 
the former. By using such license as this, any context whatever, 
which treats of one and the same person, may be rent asunder and 
divided between two. 

2. But that by the " Lord," whose oracles, uttered through the 
prophets cited in the preceding passage, Barnabas understood the 
Son of God, not God the Father, is evident from these words : 
" Because He was about to be manifested in the flesh, and to dwell in 
us." Who was this ? Surely He of whom the words immediately 
preceding treat. And our opponent clearly seeing this, again by a 
rash stroke added of himself in this place the word Christ, so that, 

ws ra irpwra. els rovro ofif \fjei iSov, \tyei Kvpios, eeAo> rovrcav, 

irpo(p-f]rr)s ettreAfleTe tls "yr\v rovrfcrriv 5)v irpoefiXeire rb irvfv/uia Kv- 

peovaav yaXa KCU /xeAt, Kal Karaitvpifv- ptov, ras \i6ivas KapSias, Kal /3aA&) aap- 

craT aurf/s, iSov ovv 7^/U6?s avaTrtirXa.o - Kivas avTo~is on e/xeAAe/ eV (Tapul (f>a~ 

KaQws TraAtv eV ertpy irpotyrirr) vepovaOai, Kal eV r/jU?j> KaTOJ/ceu/. p. 19.] 

678 Other arguments that by the Lord, whose temple our 




APPENDIX, according to his hypothesis, there would seem to have been no 
GRABE S mention made of Christ in the preceding words. As if indeed no 
penalty awaited those who thus add to, and thus corrupt the sense 
of holy men. The same thing is clear, 2, from what follows : the 
Greek is this, Afyei yap 7rd\iv Kvpios, KO\ ev rlvi ocp^crojucu rw Kupta>, 
TCO 0e< fjiov Kal bo^a(r6r](To^ai : Aeyet, E^o//,oAoy?jf70jLiai crot fv KK\r)(ria 
(v fiecrft) d&f\cp)v pov. " For the Lord saith again, Wherewithal 
shall I appear before the Lord my God, and be glorified. He saith, 
I will confess unto Thee in the congregation in the midst of my 
brethren." But, inasmuch as the Lord, who here speaks, is most 
certainly the Son of God, the same must also necessarily be under 
stood in the passages of the prophets cited before. Mellier objects 
indeed that the word " the Lord" is here wanting in the Latin, and 
thence he infers that Kvpios did not occur in the old Greek copy 
of Barnabas. But supposing, without however conceding, that the 
Greek text of Barnabas is to be mutilated in this passage on the 
authority of the Latin version, instead of this latter being filled up 
from the former, the word "again" (irdXtv), clearly proves that the 
selfsame person, viz., the Son of God, ought to be regarded as 
speaking in the earlier texts, who here speaks through the prophet ; 
and our opponent is not to be listened to, when he pretends that they 
were spoken by the Spirit of God the Father, having assumed the 
person of the future Christ. 

3. However, although this be clear enough, let us, notwithstand 
ing, see by what arguments our opponent was induced to under 
stand God the Father under the designation of " the Lord" through 
out the whole of the fore-cited passage of St. Barnabas. His first 
argument is, because God the Father is introduced in what goes 
before as blessing man, in these words ; " Be ye fruitful and multiply 
and replenish the earth ;" therefore the following must also be 
understood cf Him ; " Thus saith the Lord, Behold I make the 
last as the first, " &c. But between these passages there inter 
vene other words of St. Barnabas, in which he professes that he is 
about to treat of a new subject. " Again," he says, " I will shew 
thee how with respect to us 1 He hath in these last times made a 
second or new creation 2 . The Lord saith, Behold I make the 
first," &c. He does not here say " the same Lord saith," or " the 
Lord saith, again/ as we just now observed him afterwards express 
ing himself; but simply "the Lord saith." Wherefore there is no 
necessity for understanding it in this place also, of the same person 
who spoke in the former passages, especially when, as we have just 
shewn, the words which follow do not admit such a construction. 
Mellier seems to insinuate a second argument in explaining those 

1 nobis. 

2 figuram. 
Lat. 5eu- 

hearts are, Christ, not God the Father, is strictly meant. 679 

words, "Behold, saith the Lord, I will take from them (that is, ON BOOK n. 
from those whom the Spirit of the Lord foresaw," &c. ;) where he 
adds, " the Spirit of God the Father foresaw them ; but not the Son BAS> 
of God, who as yet had no existence, and therefore could not then 
foresee any thing 1 ." But this is begging the question most grossly, 
and is besides confuted not only by Barnabas himself, but by the 
Apostle St. Peter; by the latter in his first Epistle, i. 11, in these 
words respecting the company of the prophets, " they prophesied, 
searching what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which 
was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of 
Christ, and the glory that should follow ;" and by the former in 
chapter v. of his Epistle, writing thus 11 ; "The prophets receiving 
their gift from Him, prophesied of Him 1 ." I shall have more to 1 in ilium, 
say of these words by and by. 

4. A third argument is derived from parallel passages, where 
Barnabas called the faithful the temple of God, not of Christ. For 
instance, he says, in chap, iv., " Let us be spiritual, let us be a finished 
temple unto God;" compare chap. 16. But these statements agree 
very well, because God the Father and the Son, together with the 
Holy Ghost, abide in the same dwelling ; as our Saviour Himself in 
structs us, John xiv. 23, " If a man love Me, he will keep My words, 
and My Father will love him, and We \vill come unto him, and will 
make Our abode with him." And St. Paul, as in his Epistle to the 
Corinthians he calls them the temple of God, so Eph. iii. 17, he [127] 
writes, " that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith." But our 
opponent, page 24, objects, " that Christ dwells in us indeed by 
faith, but that we are never called His temple ; as also the priest is 
said to dwell in the temple, but yet the temple is not called the 
priest s, but God s ;" but this objection is simply out of place and 
false. For one may often hear priests call the temple wherein they 
officiate, theirs, but scarcely ever is it said of them, that they dwell in 
the temple, since temples are the dwelling-places of God, and not of 
the priests. But whatever be the case with regard to external tem 
ples, it is certain that the hearts of the faithful are the temples 
of Him who dwelleth in them. For the Apostle, 2 Cor. vi. 16, 
proves that the Corinthians are the temples of the living God, from 
this, that God said, (Levit. xxvi. 12,) " I will dwell in them, and will 
walk in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." 
Compare the words of St. Ignatius to the Ephesians, which have 
been quoted in this chapter, 6, where, if I mistake not, with an 
eye to this very passage of the Apostle, he expressly wrote not only 

n Prophetae, ab ipso habentes do- (JO.] 
mini, in ilium prophetaverunt. [p. [Quoted above, p. 95, note o.] 

680 Mellier s attempts to evade the force of St. Barnabas 

APPENDIX, that Christ dwells in us, but that we are His temples, and He is 

GRABE S our God. 

5. And now, passing by any discussion about the words of Bar 
nabas, chap, xi., concerning "the body of Christ," as the "vessel of the 
Spirit," by which Mellier understands the human Spirit of our Saviour, 
and Dr. Bull, not without very probable reason, His Divine Nature, 
(although he did not frame a distinct argument for his proposition 
out of that place, but only cited it by the way to explain Hernias ;) 
passing by this discussion, I repeat, as not necessary, I proceed to 
vindicate from Mellier s depraving process, another statement of 
Barnabas respecting the prophets, which I quoted just now in 3, 
and which is of especial use in proving the divinity of Christ. 
For he conjectures that these words in the Latin, " the prophets hav- 

1 in ipsum. ing a gift from Him prophesied about Him 1 ," were derived from Greek 

words to this effect , ot Trpo^rai vrrep avrov e^oi/res TTJV x<*P lv > which 
the translator ought therefore to have turned thus ; " the prophets 
having their gift for Him, (or for His sake,) prophesied about 
Him." But how does he prove his conjecture ? " We read," he 
says, " in the same old translation, chap. 7. Because He must suffer 
from them (ab illis), where in the Greek it is because He must suffer 
[128] f r them (virep avrS>v). But he must be blinder than a mole, who 
does not see at once that the old translator there read VTT avr&v, 
and therefore in this place also had w* avrov in the original Greek. 
And it seems that Irenseus also read thus in Barnabas, and copied 
46 from him what he has in b. iv. c, 37. p. 331. col. i. line 33. of my 
edition? : " The prophets, receiving the prophetic gift from the same 
Word, proclaimed beforehand His coming after the flesh." Compare 
chap. xvi. of the same book p. 303, col. i. line 91, and the note num. 
2. on the same passage. "But," continues Mellier, "let us even 
grant that the ancient translator here read VTT avrov e%ovTs rrjv \apiv 9 
and was therefore right in rendering it ab ipso habentes donum, re 
ceiving their gift from Him, yet we have a good answer already 
provided by Grotius, who says on 1 Peter i. 11 : The Spirit that 
signified before the things of Christ, and which was given to them 

2 Christ! on account of Christ 2 , he calls from the object 3 the Spirit of Christ, 
causa. Tllug B arna b as i n the end of his epistle, Prophet ce ab ipso habentes 
jecto? donum, the prophets, receiving their gift from Him, prophesied 

about Him, &c. According to Grotius, therefore, the phrase Pro 
phets ab ipso habentes donum, (having their gift from Him,) is in 

[See p. 679, k. The Greek of caverunt ejus secundum carnem ad- 

this part of the epistle is lost.] ventum. c. 20. 4. p. 254.] 

P [Prophet* ab eodem Verbo pro- i [c. 7. 2. p. 235.J 
pheticum accipientes charisma, praedi- 

words, against the laws of language. 681 

meaning no other than Prophetce ipsius causa habentes donum, (having ON BOOKII. 
their gift on His account). And rightly ; for the Son of God, I mean _!l 
Him who was to be the Son of God 1 , the Son, I repeat, of God, the BARNA " 
man Christ Jesus, although He Himself as yet existed not, sent i Films jm 
and impelled those prophets ; and they may be said to have had futuius. 
the Spirit from Him, who was the cause of their having it ; and 
which they would not have had, were it not that He was to come 
into the world." But, I insist, if these words may be used in this 
sense, any thing may be said instead of any thing. Our adversary 
ought to have produced, if not out of Barnabas, at least out of other 
authors, sacred or profane, some examples in proof of this unusual 
mode of expression ; and no doubt he would have produced such if 
he could. But no man who wished to express that a thing has 
been given or received pro altero,for the sake of another, because of 
another, ever yet wrote that it had been given or received ab al- 
tero,from another: nor did any one, I suppose, ever yet so play with 
words as to say, as Mellier has done, that a person not as yet having 
a real existence sends or impels other persons to the discharge of any 
office. As to Grotius, it is certain that he has done violence to the 
words of St. Peter, and introduced a meaning which does not belong 
to them ; whether he has on Barnabas also is not so clear ; since [129] 
he seems to have deduced the presignification of the things of Christ 
from the latter clause, "they prophesied of Him," rather than from 
the former, " receiving their gift from Him." But whatever be our 
view of the meaning of Grotius, I set against him the judgment 
not of Irenseus only, but of every one who reads the text of Bar 
nabas without prejudice, under the firm persuasion that no one, 
Gentile or Jew, if [only] a believer, would take the words of Bar 
nabas in any other sense, than that in which we, according to the 
ordinary mode of speaking, take them. 

6. Lastly, the words of Barnabas r , chap. 12, are worthy of notice : 
" Behold again Jesus, not the Son of Nun, (or rather Son of Man/ 
in the Greek vibs ai/fywTrov,) but the Son of God, appeared in the 
flesh." He existed, therefore, as the Son of God, before He was 
manifested in the flesh ; in the Greek, ev <rap<\ <pavepa>6eis. From the 
evident agreement of these words with St. Paul s expressions, 1 Tim. 
iii. 16, 6e6s tyavcpa>6ri *v <rapK\, "God was manifest in the flesh," 
it is very probable that Barnabas had them in view. Barnabas, how 
ever, goes on to say, " Since then they will hereafter say that Christ is 
the Son of David, David dreading and perceiving the error of the 

r [The Greek is ?5e ira\iv lri<rovs, few lines before), a\\ b vibs TOV 0eof > 
ov X & vibs a^pwTi-ou (filius Navte in the rvir V K o.l eV <rapicl <J>cu/epw0eis. p. 41.] 
old Latin version, which words occur a 

682 Bp. Bull s citations from Hennas vindicated; 

APPENDIX, wicked, says again, The Lord said unto my Lord 8 , " &c. By which 

GR ABE S saying of David our Saviour had Himself already insinuated the 

NOTES. Divinity of His own Person to the Jews, Matth. xxiii. 43 seqq. 

Barnabas moreover adds some other words from Isaiah, and thus 

concludes : " See how the prophets call Him Lord and Son of God*," 

(that is, according to the Greek, KOL vlov Qeov,) " not Son merely." 



1. IN opposition to the title " Counsellor of God," which our re 
verend author applies to the Son of God u , after the doctrine of the 
Shepherd, in Similitude ix., Mellier, in page 32, inaptly alleges the 
authority of St. Paul, who denies, Rom. xi. 34, that any one has been 
a counsellor to God ; since it is only of a mere man or of any 
creature that the Apostle denies this, not of the Son of God, amongst 
whose titles this particular one is mentioned, in Isaiah ix. 6. that He 
is " Counsellor, [the mighty] God." His next exception, in page 

[130] 33, to these words of the Shepherd, " The name of the Son of God 
is great and immense x ," to the effect that such things as are great 
and wonderful are often called immense, is not sufficient; because 
we are compelled to understand those words of the Divine immensity 
by what immediately follows, " And the whole world is sustained by 
Him ;" and again, " Every creature of God is sustained by His 
Son." Most justly, therefore, is this called by our author "a truly 
Divine work;" and on the contrary his opponent absurdly teaches 
that Christ, a mere man, even while He was in the flesh, sustained all 
things by the word of His power. Holy Scripture, indeed, is so far 
from asserting this, that it rather represents to us Christ subject, 
as man, to infirmities in the flesh, and strengthened at the time of 
47 His passion by a created angel, and lastly crucified " through i weak- 

* ness." 2 Cor. xiii. 4. 

2. As to the passage of Hermas in Book iii. Similitude v.?, I shall 

s [eVel ovv /xeAAoucri Ae^eu & n 6 Xpur- old Latin version, "Videte qxiomodo 

rbs vlos ecm Aa/315, (po/Sov/nefos KO.) av- ilium prophetae Dominum et Filium 

vicav rV irXav}iv -T&V a/j.apr a)\a>i/ Aeyet* Dei, lion tantum Filium dicunt." p. 

el-net/ 6 Kvpios ry Kvpty u,ov, /c.r.A. 46.] 

Ibid.] u [See above p. 87, and p. 46, note o.] 

1 [The words of St. Barnabas are: x [Quoted p. 87, note 1.] 

?8e, TTOJS Xtyei Aa/3t5 avrov Kvpiof KOI ? [ 6. p. 107, quoted p. 87, note 

vlbv ecu (p. 41.) Grabe follows the in.] 

his arguments confirmed by other passages. 683 

not press those words, wherein the Son of God is said " to be placed, ON BOOKII. 
not in the condition of a servant, but in great power and command ;" CH * 
nor shall I keenly contend with our opponent about the sense of HERMAS - 
the words in 5, " Now the Son is a holy Spirit," in which the most 
learned Bull, understanding the word " Son" of the second Person of 
the Trinity, determines that of Him it is predicated, that He is " a 
holy Spirit 1 ," i.e., God, who is a Spirit, and likewise most holy. l Sanct 
Mellier, on the contrary, in page 42, thus explains the expression : 
" He who is called in the parable or similitude Son, even the Son of 
the Lord of the farm, is in reality nothing else than the Holy Spirit, 
that is, the breath or power of God the Father." Indeed the opinion 
of our reverend author seems to be confirmed, and the exposition of 
his opponent overthrown, not only by the fact that this Person is 
designated " the Son of God," (which our opponent himself allows 
to be " spoken very improperly, and by a misapplication of terms 2 , of 2 catachres- 
the Holy Ghost,") but also because it is added, " whom He also had 
as His heir and beloved ;" and that the man Christ Jesus " was made 
co-heir with Him 2 ," which are scarcely, indeed not at all, suitable to 
be said of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person [of the Trinity,] or, to 
use our opponent s phrase, to the power of God the Father ; but do 
most suitably apply to the Word or Second Person. In the next 
place, the forementioned 3 Son is in this parable represented as being 3 iste. 
taken into counsel by God a . But in Similitude ix. 12 b . the Shepherd 
teaches the same respecting the Word, as follows; "The Son of [131] 
God, indeed, is more ancient than any creature, so that He was pre 
sent in counsel with His Father for the creation of the world." For 
that Jesus Christ is to be understood here, is not only most plainly 
shewn by what follows in the same place, but is freely allowed by 
Mellier, p. 28, as by Z wicker, who is forced to submit on this point. 
To this must be added, that in the same Similitude ix. 1 , it is said 
of that Spirit, which spoke to Hermas c , "The Son of God is that 
Spirit;" in which place also our opponent, page 42, understands 
Christ to be meant, although he very wrongly takes Him to be a 
mere man, and thinks that He is honoured with the appellation 
" Spirit" in this passage from the circumstance that He "was made 
a quickening Spirit," according to 1 Cor. xv. 45. These arguments, 
I repeat, and other such, I might urge in defence of the opinion of 
our excellent author. 

* [Adhibito itaque filio, quern cha- b [p. 118, quoted above, i. 2. 5. p. 
rum et haeredem habuit, 2. p. 106. 46, note o.] _ 
Volo eum filio meo facere cohaeredem. * [Ule emm Spintus Films Dei est. 
Ibid.] l.p. 114.] 

* [ 6. p. 107.] 

684 Additional testimonies out of St. Ignatius. 


APPENDIX. 3. But, passing by this discussion, let it be assumed, that the Son, 
who is called Holy Spirit in Similitude v., is not the Word, or the 
second Person of the Holy Trinity, still I conceive that no slight 
argument for His Divinity may be derived from other words of that 
passage. For in 6. d the Shepherd says of that Holy Spirit, that 
" He was first of all infused into the body (of Christ) in which God 
would dwell." Where, since the infusion of the Holy Spirit is ex 
pressly distinguished from the in-dwelling of God, and the one is put 
first as preparatory to the other, it is taught clearly enough, that not 
only the Holy Spirit, or the power of the Most High, sanctified the 
body of Christ, but that another Person also dwelt within Him, whom 
the Shepherd calls by the name of God, even the Son of God, as our 
adversaries must themselves allow ; since they, as well as we, deny 
that God the Father was personally united to the human nature of 
Christ ; and they cannot say that He was in Christ merely through 
the Spirit, or, in other words, through the power of the Godhead, 
consistently with the words of Hermas ; seeing that he makes this 
distinct from the in-dwelling of God. There are, indeed, several 
points which call for animadversion in Mellier s long discussion re 
specting the meaning of Hermas, especially those parts, in which 
he ineffectually contends against the subsistence of the Holy Ghost 
distinct from God the Father, which is frequently intimated by the 
Shepherd ; since however our present object is only to maintain the 
consubstantiality 1 of the second Person, we will not digress to other 

1 6/j.oov- 


ON BOOK II. CHAP. 2. 6. 


8 avOpwtri- 

To the testimonies which were alleged out of St. Ignatius, in 
support of the Divinity of Christ, in 6. of this chapter, the follow 
ing may be added; in his Epistle to the Ephesians, 18 e , "For 
our God, Jesus Christ, was borne in the womb by Mary according to 
the dispensation of God." A passage which you may find quoted 
word for word in the first dialogue of Theodoret. In the same epistle, 
19 f ; " God being manifested after the manner of man 2 [i. e. in 

d [p. 107, 
note t] 

e 6 yap 0eJ> 
eKvo<popri6r) VTT 

quoted above, p. 90. 

i fj/J.COV ifjffOVS 6 XptCTT^S 

!> Mapias war olnovop.iav 

eoi;. [p. 15.] 
f eou avdpojTrivcos 

aiSiov "O>T?S. [p. 


Passages in St. Clement like St. Paul s to the Romans. 685 

human flesh] unto the renewal of eternal life." Again, in 20 ; ON BOOK n. 
" In Jesus Christ, who is of the family of David according to the CH 2 6< 
flesh, the Son of Man, and Son of God." In the inscription of the IGNATIUS - 
epistle to the Romans 11 , Jesus Christ is twice called " our God," and 
in the epistle itself, p. 14 \ these words occur; " For our God, Jesus 
Christ, being in the Father, is the more manifested." Although I 
must confess that this passage is not recognised either by the 
translator or the interpolator k . Lastly, at the end of his epistle to 
Polycarp : : "I pray that you may always be strong in our God 
Jesus Christ." Compare my notes in the following chapter, (chap. 
3,) on Clement of Rome, 2. 

ON CHAP. III. 3. &c. Ac. 



1 . IN reply to Zwicker, who rashly put out the statement, that 
Clement of Rome, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, scarcely 
acknowledged any other than the human nature in Christ 111 , our very 
learned author, in 3. of this chapter alleges against him the fact, 
that St. Clement, in 32, in describing those great gifts, ra p.eya\ela 
TWV Spe<Bi>, which were granted by God to the family of Abraham 
because of his faith, writes thus; "From him [came] our Lord 
Jesus according to the flesh 1 ;" "where" as he well observes, b 
the limitation, "according to the flesh," is manifestly intimated 
that there was another nature in Christ besides the human, or the Ka ra crop- 
flesh, which He derived from the loins of Abraham. And this ob- Ka - 
servation, I think, derives no slight confirmation from the fact, that 
Clement being bishop of Rome, and writing his epistle to the 
Corinthians in the name of that Church, seems to have derived, nay, 
copied, the limitation in question, from St. Paul s Epistle to the 
Romans ix. 5, " Of whom, Christ [came] according to the flesh;" 
( 3 E v 6 X/310-T-6? TO Kara o-up*a.) Now, as in this passage there is im- 

g iTjo-oG Xpio-T<? r$ Kara. ffdpKa e /c Uarpl &v fj.a\\ov QalverM. [p. 14. 

yfvovs Ao/3t5, r$ vi$ avQpuirov, Kal of the Spicilegium ; 3. p. 27. ed. C< 

via eoG. [ibid.] tel.] 

h [ K ara aydiryv l-nffov Xpurrou, rov k [i.e. it is not contained either in 

eoG jjn&v. . . . eV lTjrou Xpurry r<? the old Latin version, or the interpo- 

0e wuwj/. p. 25. Dr. Grabe refers lated copies.] 

to his own Spicilegium Patrum, vol. i. * ^Scrfou v^as 8<a ris ^ *V 

SJEC. ii. p. 13.] W** JVToS Xpurry .ffxo/W*. U?. 42.J 

6 yap ebs wuv l-nffovs Xpiffrbs eV m [Quoted above, p. 106.] 

686 Passage from St. Clement omitted by Bp. Bull, in which 

APPENDIX, mediately added a mention of His Divine Nature, as if to account for 

GKABE S the foregoing limitation, in these words, " Who is over all, God blessed 

for ever," (^O &>v eVi TTCLVTOOV Qebs v\o"yr]Tos els TOVS aioJi/as 1 ,) SO I 

doubt not that Clement too, in using St. Paul s limitation, also had 
in his mind the words [of the Apostle] which follow, respecting the 
Godhead of Christ. For Clement borrowed, or at any rate imitated, 
other expressions also out of St. Paul s Epistle to the Romans. I 
quote a single verse as an instance, (the last verse of the first 
chapter,) which is thus cited in Clement s epistle, 35 n : " For 
they who do these things are hated of God ; and not only they who 
do them, but they likewise who take pleasure in them." And from 
this, I may observe in passing, the question respecting the various 
[169] readings of this passage of the Apostle, is decided ; for St. Clement, 
no doubt, had in his hands the very autograph of Paul s Epistle , 
which was still preserved in the Roman Church in the time of Ter- 
tullian, and copied his words from it. 

2. But what if a passage be found in the epistle of St. Clement 
now quoted, in which Christ is expressly called God. It may in 
deed seem incredible ; not only because Photius, cod. 126?, observes 
that "[Clement], in calling our Lord Jesus Christ, High-Priest 
and Defender, does not employ concerning Him those expressions 
which are of a higher character and suitable to God;" but also be 
cause no theologian, so far as I know, has hitherto alleged any such 
passage against the opponents of the Divinity of Christ. Such a 
passage, however, there is in 2. of this epistle, though perhaps 
not obvious at first sight, in which the Corinthians are graced by 
such an eulogium as this ; " Being satisfied with the portion God 
had given to you, and giving good heed to His words, ye were em 
braced in His bosom, and His sufferings were [present] before your 
eyesV Observe the expression "His sufferings," Tra&^iara aiirov 
i.e., clearly His of whom mention w r as made in the clauses immedi 
ately preceding, even God, roC Geou r , who can be none other than 
Jesus Christ, the Son of God : for to God the Father sufferings can 
in no wise be ascribed. Nor ought this mode of expression to be 

n ravra yap ol TrpdffcrovTfs ffTvy^Tol authentic^ literce the originals were 

Ttf 0e< vTrdpxovffiv ov p.6vov 5e ol meant.] 

Trpdffcrovres aura, aAAa /cat ol <rwev8o- P [See the Greek above, p. 105, 

KovuTfs O.VTOLS. [p. ItiS.] notem.] 

[Grabe refers here to the words of 1 rots eipoSiois rov eou apKov/j.i>oi, 

Tertullian, which occur in the treatise KOI irpoaexovTes TOVS \6yovs avrov eVt- 

De Prescript. Heret. 36. p. 215, where /ueAws, e <rTepj/t0>ieVoi -fire rots a-ir\dy- 

he is speaking of the authentic^ apo- xvois, Kal TO. TraO^/j-ara avrov "f\v irpb 

stolorum literce, "the originals of the o<0aA / uo>i vp.uv. [p. 148.] 
Apostles epistles." But the learned r [Cotelerius had remarked this be- 

writer is mistaken __ B. Dr. Burton fore Grabe, according to Bowyer. B.] 
did not think, as Grabe did, that by 

Christ is expressly called God. Parallel passages. 687 

thought inconsistent with the apostolic faith, or the age of Clement. ON BOOK n. 
For as St. Paul in his discourse at Ephesus, Acts xx. 28, attri- CH - 3 - ;3t 
butes to God " His own blood," t Sioi/ af/ua, and after him Ignatius, CLEM - R - 
near the commencement of his epistle to those same Ephesians, 
speaks of them as "being followers of God, having re-kindled [you] 
by the blood of God 3 ," so also, in his epistle to the Romans, 
the latter thus writes 4 ; " Permit me to be a follower of the suffering 
of my God ;" eTTtrpe^are pot p.ifJ.r^Trjv flvai rrdOovs TOV Geou /xou, as the 
ancient commonly received Latin version also reads, and translates. 
" Smite me imitatorem esse passionis Dei mei." Of Tatian, and some 
other fathers more recent than Clement, who used the same expres- 61 
sion, I say nothing in this place. 

3. I do not forget the conjecture of Patricius Junius, in a note on 
this passage, that instead of iraBrmara we should perhaps read findrj- [170] 
fiaru. But this conjecture is deservedly thrown aside, as it tampers 
with the text unnecessarily, and without the authority of any MS. ; 
and also because in another passage of this very epistle of Clement, 
" the sufferings of Christ" are said to be " placed," or ought to be 
placed "before the eyes of the faithful." Thus in 7. he says u ; 
" Let us look stedfastly to the blood of Christ, and see how precious 
His blood is in the sight of God ; which being shed for our salvation 
has offered the grace of repentance to all the world." Similarly in 
21, he says x ; "Let us reverence our Lord Jesus Christ, whose 
blood was given for us." And in that place, without one word 
intervening, St. Clement goes on to this effect ; " Let us respect 
those who are set over us ; let us honour our elders ; the young let 
us school in the discipline of the fear of God ; our wives let us guide 
aright to that which is good ; let them exhibit the amiable character 
of chastity," &c. I have quoted these words here, to shew the reader 
how exactly they correspond to what occurs four or five lines before 
the passage respecting the sufferings of God, iraB^ara Qeov, set forth 
before the eyes of the Corinthians ; which are as follows?; "Being 
subject to those who have the rule over you, and giving becoming 

. vTes eou, avaTrvp-rja-av- TOVS 

T69 eV afytari eou. [ 1. p. 12.] TOV <p6/3ov TOV &eov Tas 

t r Q p 29.] M Tb ayaQbv SiopQwo-w/AfQa, TO. 

u aTej/io-a^ei/ ets rb al/j.a TOV XpiffTOv, ydirrjTov TTJS ayveias fyos foftc<{ 

Kai ftuncv &s etTTL rifuov r<? 0e< aT/*a ffav, K.T.\. 21. [pp. 160, Wl.] 
avTov, o, TI 5ta T?> rj^Tfpav ffotrnplaof y 

v. [ 7. p. 152.] TO?S Trap v^uv rp*<r0vr*f>Ott, i>eois re 

riv Kvptov iTja-ouf Xpurrbv, ov Tb /xeVpia /cal ffcpv* voe?i/ eVeTpeTreTc^ 71;- 
ai/J-a virep w&v &66*n, evTpa.irwiJ.ev. vai^iv re Iv a^fj.y Kal ff<(*V$ Kal ayvy 



TOVS -rrpeo-fivTepovs T^M Tt/xTjo-co/xei/, AeTe, K.r.A. [ 1. p. 147.] 

688 Mellier s objection against an argument from St. Clement. 

APPENDIX, honour to the elders that are among you, ye charged the young 
GRABE S to be grave, and sober-minded; and exhorted the women to do 
all things with an unblameable, and grave and pure conscience," 
&c. He must be blind who does not at the first glance observe the 
parallelism of these passages, and perceive that St. Clement in the 
former passage commends the Corinthians for these so excellent 
acts, which they had before fulfilled ; and in the latter exhorts them 
to repeat simply these former works, which they had discontinued, 
[171] and to return to their good fruit. As therefore, in the. one, he ad 
monishes them that the Lord Jesus, whose blood was shed for the 
faithful, ought to be reverenced ; in the other he appears to have 
actually commended them, for that they had kept in mind and duly 
prized the sufferings of God made flesh. 

4. I proceed to the words of Clement in 16, which our most 
learned author has adduced above 4. [p. 107.] in proof of the 
Divine Majesty of Christ, but which his adversary, under his feigned 
name of Luke Mellier, has distorted, so as to make Christ not only 
a mere man, but also liable to sin, although not sinning actually. 
For, from the statement of Clement, that Jesus Christ " came not in 
the pomp of pride and arrogancy, though He might have so come 2 ," 
he draws this conclusion : " Here he expressly allows, that, although 
Jesus Christ came not in the pomp of pride and arrogancy, yet He 
might have come in the pomp of pride, i.e. that He might have sinned, 
if He had willed. Now, he who asserts such things as this of Christ, 
does, by that very assertion, most manifestly deny that He was united 
in one person with the supreme Godhead, or consisted of the Divine 
and the human nature joined together personally ; for [the Divine 
nature] would have rendered the human perfectly incapable of sin." 
What censure this assertion deserves, supposing it were false, the 
author himself proclaims to his own condemnation, when he afterwards 
adds, " As he would be a blasphemer, who should say that the Most 
High God could sin, so he would be no less a blasphemer who 
should utter the like of human nature, when conjoined with the 
Divine by an indivisible and personal union." Why then, O weak 
man, have you so recklessly uttered those words, nay, written and 
published them, [and] made yourself a blasphemer against Christ, 
and a slanderer of His servant St. Clement ? For he did not 
write that Christ might have corne eV a\aoveia KOI vfrfp^avia, "in 
pride and arrogancy," and thus have sinned ; but that He did not 
come eV KopTTto aXafrvcias xal V7r(pr]<pavias, " in the pomp of pride and 
arrogancy," that is, in noise, and with such pomp, as the proud and 

* [Cited above, p. 107, note t.] 

Further cavils of Mellier refuted. 689 

arrogant (ol d\dovfs KOI vTrtpfaavoi) are used to exhibit, when they ON BOOK 11. 
appear in public. But Christ might have come with such external CH - 3> 3 
accompaniments and splendour, if He had willed, and yet He would CLEM - R - 
not on that account have incurred the charge of arrogancy, or sinned 
through pride : even as He will not sin, when He shall come here 
after, " glorious in His apparel, travelling in the greatness of His 
strength," Isaiah Ixiii. 1, or when He " shall come in His glory, 
and all the holy angels with Him," when He "shall sit upon the [172] 
throne of His glory," Matt. xxv. 31. This being so, there is no 
need to interpret the words Kaiirtp dwdpfvos by quamvis potens sit, 
(" although He be mighty :") or to adopt Jerome s paraphrase, cum 
possit omnia, (" although He be Almighty :") though this is not 
so absurd as Mellier imagines. That is also a foolish cavil, with 
which this writer attacks Bull for writing of Christ, that, " in His 
advent, He did not demean Himself as the sceptre of the Majesty 
of Godi." This is indeed most true, if you rightly interpret "the 
sceptre of the Majesty of God." For no Socinian, I apprehend, 62 
denies that this denotes that regal power of Christ, which the 
Father gave to Him, in order that, as " King set upon Mount 
Zion," He should rule the Jews in His name. But when certain of 
the Jews came to Jesus " to take Him by force and make Him a 
king, He departed," John vi. 15, and at length " He went into a far 
country, to receive for Himself a kingdom, and to return," Luke 
xix. 12. But He did not receive it in His first advent, for "the 
kingdom of God " did not " immediately appear," because " His 
citizens hated Him, and said, We will not have this man to reign 
over us." ibid., 11 and 14. But it is tedious to delay any longer on 
these topics. 

5. Out of the second epistle to the Corinthians, which bears the 
name of Clement, Dr. Bull in 5, [p. 110,] has alleged two pas 
sages witnessing to the Divinity of Christ : to the former of which, 
wherein we are bidden so to think of Jesus Christ, ws Kepi Qeov, 
" as of God," his adversary makes no reply, satisfied perhaps with 
thinking himself, and leaving others to think, that the author of the 
epistle meant the " made," or rather the pretended 1 , " God" of the factum 
Socinians. The latter passage, however, he has wrested to a meaning J^^ 11 
entirely different from that which the words present to the reader at Deum. 
the very first glance. The Greek text stands thus : O l^o-oOy Xpioroy 

6 Kvpios, 6 (raaras f) t &v /nei> TO Trp&TOv Tri/eu/ja, eyevero (7up> K.X. 

Which Patricks Junius thus translated into Latin : " Jesus Christus 
Dominus, qui nos servavit, cum primum esset Spiritus, caro factus est" 

q [See p. 108.] 


690 Our Lord " being at first Spirit, became flesh ;" 

APPENDIX. "Jesus Christ the Lord, who saved us, being at first Spirit, became 
GRABE S flesh," &c. The version, however, or rather perversion, of this pas 
sage upon which Mellier insists, is: "Jesus Christus Dominus, qui 
nos servavit, qui quidem est primarius (seu pracipuus) Spiritus, erat 
caro ;" ("Jesus Christ, the Lord, who saved us, who is the primary 
(or principal) Spirit, was flesh ;") understanding, that is, by " the 
primary or principal Spirit," Christ the exalted man. But let us 
[1731 see how he goes on to prove this his interpretation and exposition : 
" Christ, the exalted man," he says, " we have seen designated * a 
Spirit in Hermas, a contemporary of Clement." He reffers no 
doubt to the ninth Similitude 1 " of Hermas, where the Shepherd says 
to him, " I will shew thee whatsoever things the Spirit shewed thee, 
who spake with thee under the figure of the Church, for that Spirit 
is the Son of God." But in this place it is not the Son of God, 
much less the man Christ Jesus, who is called a Spirit ; but on the 
contrary, the Spirit who appeared to Hermas is said to be the Son 
of God ; which, as every one sees, are quite different things. Nay, 
Mellier himself saw this ; and accordingly, after he had said, page 

1 potuit 45, "It is perhaps 1 Christ, the human Son of God, whom here 
esse - in Similitude ix. he calls Spirit ;" he immediately adds, [as if] dis 
trusting that explanation, " or rather, that Spirit, who is said in 

2 rapuisse. book i. to have caught away 2 Hermas, &c., whom he called the Son 

of God." It is then evidently to no purpose to adduce Hermas on 
this point. Then as to the word nparov, Mellier is in error in sup 
posing that it is used by Clement in his first epistle to the Cor 
inthians, 47, as meaning " primary" or " principal." For Trpeoroi/ 
in this place does not signify prcecipue (" principally ") but primum 
("first"), or time past, as is altogether clear from the additional 
phrase lv dpxf) rov evayyeXiov, " in the beginning of the Gospel," or 
of the preaching of the Gospel ; and also from the fact, that the cen 
sure, which Clement there points against the Corinthians on account 
of their different followings after Peter, Paul, and others, 1 Cor. i. 11, 
&c., was not the principal subject on which Paul wrote to the Corinth 
ians ; for there are other matters of greater importance contained in 
his Epistle, such as the proof of the resurrection of the faithful, &c. 
I grant that in 3 of this latter epistle [of Clement,] the word irpwrov 
may be rendered prcecipue (principally) ; but then, on the other hand, 
in 11 it manifestly means primo, or prius (at first), in the following 
words : Aa/Sere aprreXov irpaiTOV pev (pv\\oppoel, era /SXatrroy yiWrcu, K.\. 
" Take a vine ; at first it puts forth leaves, then branches," &c. The 

r Volo ostendere tibi, quaecumque clesiae locutus est tecurn ; ille enim 
Spiritus tibi ostendit, qui in effigie ec- Spiritus Filius Dei est. [Init. p. 114.] 

Mellier 3 s attempts to evade the force of these words. 691 

point therefore is at issue between Junius and Mellier; and I have ON BOOK n. 
quite as much right to say on the side of the former that o>i/ T 6 Trp&rov CH - 3t 3 - 
nvfvpa is rightly translated cum primum esset Spiritus ("being at first CLEM> Rt 
Spirit"), as Mellier has to say that TO np>Tov nvevpa most properly 
denotes prcecipuwm Spiritum, ("the principal Spirit;") but he adds 
imo debet, " nay it ought" [to be so translated.] Be it so ; let it be [174] 
supposed, though not allowed, that TO irp&Tov Trvevpa here does mean 
" the principal Spirit;" how will he then prove that Clement applies 
this designation to " Christ the exalted man ?" Certainly not from 
[Clement] himself, nor from any other of the apostolic writers. 
Certainly if TO rrp&Tov Tn/eO/ia must be taken to mean " the principal" 
or " first Spirit," I should then understand Christ to be so designated 
according to His Divine Nature, which was afterwards clothed with 
flesh ; inasmuch as He is, and ever from the beginning has been, the 
Captain of the angels and holy spirits of God, Joshua v. 14, and after 
wards was made man, " that, as the Word of God is Prince among 
the super- celestial and spiritual, and invisible beings, so He may 
have the pre-eminence also among the visible and corporeal," 
according to the doctrine of Irenaeus, iii. 18, p. 241, col. 1 s , which 
the Arians anciently accepted, although it is impiously rejected by 
the Socinians of the present day. But I could never bring myself 
to interpret the words Trp&rov Tn/tCjua, 6 eyevero <rapg, that Christ 
who had before "been flesh," afterwards became "the principal 

6. But the audacious adversary proceeds; "This sense is abso 
lutely required by the subject of which Clement is treating." For he 
pretends that this holy father, after he has affirmed that " the faith 
ful will in the flesh enter" into the kingdom of God, meets a tacit 
objection on the part of such as should say ; " nay, rather, in the 
kingdom of God we shall be spiritual, why do you say therefore that 
we shall in the flesh enter," &c. ? and answers it to this effect ; " Be- 33 
hold, Christ our Lord, who saved us, who has been given to us for an 
example, who is now Spirit, yea the principal Spirit, was previously 
flesh. These things therefore are not inconsistent with one another. 
You will also be capable of becoming immortal spirits or spiritual 
beings, although you be flesh, and in the flesh shall enter," &c. And 
after this he thus concludes ; " You see how well these things are 
connected together, and in this view how apposite is the example of 
Jesus Christ, which Clement adduces." I however simply see how 
ill these things hang together, and in this view how apposite is the 
example of Christ, not indeed to solve, but to confirm the objection 

8 [c. 16, 6. p. 206.] 


692 Mellier s way of understanding the words, absurd; 

APPENDIX, of the [supposed] gainsayers. And do you attend, in order that you 
GRABE S may see it also. The author of this epistle is contending against those 
NOTES. Corinthians, who denied that there was a resurrection of that flesh 
which we carry about with us on earth, on the supposition that it is 
[175] incapable of eternal life, and cannot possibly consist 1 with the Spirit, 
^onsistere. the author of immortality. " Let none of you," he says, " say that this 
flesh is not judged, nor rises again. Acknowledge Him in whom 
you have been saved, and in whom you have received sight, only 
being yet in this flesh ;" then after a short interval occur the words 
in question, " Jesus Christ the Lord, who saved us, $>v pev TO Trpooroi* 
irvevpa, eyei/ero crap K. \., " being at first Spirit became flesh," &c. 
If Clement in these last words had meant that Christ, when He had 
previously been flesh, afterwards became Spirit, his opponent pressing 
upon him might have slain him with his own weapons, by making this 
retort ; Just as Jesus, being flesh, became Spirit after death, so we also, 
after we have laid aside our flesh through death, shall be wholly spirit, 
and rise again without this flesh. For the heretics were so far from 
denying that those who had been formerly in the flesh, might become 
spirit, or from rejecting these things as inconsistent (as Mellier pre 
tends), that this was their very hypothesis. Why then should Clement 
have gone about to prove it ? " But," he proceeds to say, when about 
to assail our exposition, "if you suppose him" (the author of the 
epistle) " to speak of the Incarnation, what this most ancient Christian 
writer has here expressed will surely be cold and unmeaning words. 
Does he not, when he says*, OVTQ>S KOI foels K.A., * In like manner we 
also &c., evidently compare us with Christ in that particular which he 
is asserting of Christ ?" Certainly not, I reply, and thus do I blow away 
all the folly which is built up as a superstructure on this question. 
The phrase ovrw fatls, [OVT<DS KOL fj/jifls] " In like manner we also," has 
reference to the words immediately preceding, OVTVS was cmXfo-ei/, 
" thus He called us ;" and the argument of the passage is as follows ; 
" In whatsoever state we have been called by Christ, and have been 
obedient to His calling, in the same shall we also be glorified and 
receive our reward. But it is in this flesh that we have been called 
by Christ, and have been obedient to His call ; therefore in this flesh 
shall we be glorified and receive our reward." For the following 
words immediately precede those about which we are disputing, " For 
just as you have been called in the flesh, so in the flesh shall we 
come." And thus also in the following clause ; " Thus," i.e. in the 
flesh, " He called us ; in like manner also shall we receive our re 
ward in this flesh ;" for, according to Romans viii. 30, " whom He 

* [See p. 110.] 

the true interpretation shewn to be required by the context. 693 

called them He also glorified." It is only incidentally that Clement ON BOOKII. 
introduces the mention of our having been called in the flesh by CH * 3 - 3 - 
Christ, who was also Himself clothed with flesh, though afore- CLEM - R - 
time He was only Spirit: by which He indirectly extols the dignity L 1 6 ] 
of the flesh, which his adversaries declared to be incapable of [re 
ceiving] the Spirit, and therefore of immortality, and strikes them 
with a new weapon. For why should not our flesh be capable of being 
clothed upon with Spirit in another life, and of consisting together 
with it 1 , when Christ, who is Spirit as touching His Godhead, did not l simul 

disdain to put on flesh, and to unite it intimately with Himself ? cum . eos 

J consistere. 

For this is the genuine and also the suitable meaning of the phrase, 

by which Christ the Word, as John calls Him, and Spirit as Cle 
ment, is said to have been made flesh ; it is therefore needless to 
answer the cavil, which Mellier has out of this passage aimed against 
the orthodox doctrine. As to the reading els instead of 6 irjo-ovs in the 
Alexandrine MS. U , although it will not help him at all, yet, to be more 
certain on the point, I should like to examine that MS. myself, and 
to state how it really stands. I have not however the opportunity of 
doing this, because the very learned Dr. Bentley, the royal librarian, 
is absent at Cambridge on public duty. For the same reason I am 
unable to prove the falsity of another conjecture which is added in. the 
postscript about reading vvv for /xeV. A convenient opportunity will 
however be presented to me for doing so, please God, at another 

7. Lastly, with respect to the words of Clement, which Basil the 
Great, and out of him our reverend author, has adduced above, 5, 
[p. 110,] since they have been called in question by Mellier, I add 
for the purpose of confirming them a parallel passage out of his first 
epistle to the Corinthians v ^ to the following effect ; C%i *" Qebv 
e^o/Liei/, KOI cva XPHTTOV, Kal ev IlveCfta, " Have we not one God, and 
one Christ, and one Spirit?" where he names the three Persons of 
the Godhead together; although to the first, as the principle 2 of the 2 princi- 
[other] two, he gives /car eo%r)v the appellation, God. But I must pm 
refrain from further comment. 

tt [In which MS. O12 often occurs for 6 IrjtroOs.], * [| 46.] 

694 The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. 








SINCE the Testaments of the twelve patriarchs were, in the opinion 
of some learned men, written in the first century after Christ w , and 
for that reason are inserted in my Spicilegium Patrum Sceculi /., I 
wish to adduce here the following remarkable testimonies to the 
Divinity of Christ, gathered from them. In the Testament of 
Simeon, p. 156, we read these words x ; "The Lord, the great God 
of Israel, appearing on earth as a man, and saving Adam therein 1 ;" 
and afterwards, in p. 157?, "God taking a body, and eating with 
men, saved them." A little while afterwards he calls the Messiah, 
0eoi/ Kal avOpwirov, " God and man." In the Testament of Levi, p. 
159, an Angel addresses Levi in these words 2 ; "Through thee and 

2 eV auroTs. Judah shall the Lord appear among men, in them 2 saving the entire 

3 infemum. race of mankind:" next, p. 160, Levi says, "that hell 3 shall be 

despoiled," rt T trddei TOV wfriavav, " on the suffering of the Most 
High." In the Testament of Judah, p. 187, mention is made "of 
the coming [or advent] of the God of justice," (jvapovo-ias TOV GeoO 
TT}S diKdLoa-vvrjs,*) from Jeremiah xxiii. 6, and xxxiii. 16, if I mistake 
not: and in p. 188 it is said of the Messiah, ovros 6 /SXaoro? 0eoO 
*6fi\ao-r6s. V\ISI(TTOV " This is the offspring 4 of God Most High," from Isaiah iv. 
2. In the Testament of Zebulon, p. 203, [it is written] : Mera ravra 
ava.T\si vpiv avros Kvpio?, (f)>s diKaioo-vvrjs " After this there shall 
arise upon you the Lord Himself, the Light of Righteousness :" KOI 
ctyeortfe Qfbv ej/ <rxV art av0pa>7rov, "and ye shall see God in the form 
of a man." In the Testament of Dan, p. 208 a ; "No longer does 
Jerusalem endure desolation, nor is Israel in captivity, because the 
Lord shall be in the midst of her, associating with men : the 

w About the year 190. Cave. 


avOpcairois, ffcafav v avrols irav yt- 
s avOpwirwj/i 

Kvpios 6 fcJeds /j.eyas rov lo~pa))\ a OVK ert 

tpaiv6fj.fvos f-rrl yys &s avOpcairos, Kal n<affiv,o 
cr(a&)v eV avT(f Tbv ASa^. Kvpios ecTTat e/u.^u.ecr(jj auTTjs, TO?S avOpca" 

y 6 tbs (rca/Jia Aa^wf, Kal a vveo Oia)! rrois a"vva.vacrrpe($>6iJ.vos, ayios Kal Icr- 
avOpwirois, errwcrev avrovs. pa))\ ftaoriXtvow e?r avrovs eV 

z bid crou Kal lot/So 6<p9-f)ffeTai Kvpios ffti Kal eV 

Christ called God, Lord, the great God, fyc. 695 

Holy [One of] Israel also being king over them in humility and TESTA- 
poverty." I refer the reader to my note on this passage at the end 
of the Spicilegium, p. 358, seq. In the Testament of Nephthalim, p. 

216 : Ala TOV O-KTJTTTpOV OVToO 6(f)6f)(TTai 06O?, KdTOlKtoV V 

errl Trjs yr)s, v&arai TO ykvos lo-paqX* " Through his sceptre [the [178] 

sceptre of Judah] shall God appear, dwelling amongst men upon 

earth, to save the race of Israel." In the Testament of Asher, p. 

228, &c., it is thus written b ; " The Most High shall visit the 

earth, coming Himself also as a man, eating and drinking among 

men, and in stillness bruising the head of the dragon through water. 

He shall save Israel and all the Gentiles, [even] God assuming the 

semblance of a man." Lastly, in the Testament of Benjamin there 

is the following prophecy respecting the times of Messiah c : " Then 

shall we also rise again, each one of us to 1 our sceptre, adoring the l M O-/CTJIT 

King of heaven, who appeared on earth in the lowly form of a man." 

He afterwards adds that the Israelites shall be judged, on Trapaye- G. 

vopcvov Qeov ev crapia. eXevBepcorrjv OVK twUfttWftUf t " because they did 

not believe God their deliverer when He came in the flesh." Behold 

how Christ is called, God, Lord, the great God, &c. 



1. OUR reverend author has taken his first argument for the true 
Divinity of the Son, from those passages of Justin Martyr where 
Christ is, on this account, said to be God, because He was generated 
of God the Father Himself, as His first-born and His Word : these 
passages d occur in the Apology presented to Antoninus Pius, p. 96, 
and in the Dialogue with Trypho, pp. 355, 357. But [Justin] in a 

b & fyurros Ivunctyereu r^v yrjv, Kal c r6re K 

aurbs t\0wi> us tivdpcairos, fffQicov Kal ffros M <TKr t Trrpot> TJ/J.UV, 

irivcoi/ nera T>V avOpwircav, Kal eV T]ffv~ rbv fiarriXea TU>V ovpavwv, T~bv eVl yrjs 

X ia o-WTpificav rty e</)aAV T0 " fy a - tpavfvra eV /J.op<(>fj avQpwirov Tairfivw- 

KOVTOS 5t vSaros. ovros (ruxrei r bv lff- trews. p. 251. 

pafa Kal TTCII/TO ra tQvn, tbs fls avfya d [See above, p. 135, notes h, i; p. 

viroKpiv6p.i-vos. 136, note k.J 

696 The Son God, because the Son : called Lord and God : 



1 ex se 


TWO, \oyi- 
Krjv. Virtu- 
tern quan- 
dam ratio- 


4 nude ap- 

5 rev era 

preceding passage also, p. 354 e , asserted this in the following 
very clear terms : " Jacob wrestled with Him who was visible in 
deed, because He ministered to the will of the Father ; but who 
was God, because He was the Son, the first-born of all creatures." 
Compare p. 267. D. f It is also worthy of remark, that Justin did 
not simply teach that God generated the Word ; but that He begat 
Him, out of His own self 1 . Thus in the Dialogue with Trypho, p. 
284. A.s, he undertakes to prove from Scripture, " That in the be 
ginning 2 , before all h the created beings, God begat from out of Him 
self a certain rational power 3 , which is also called by the Holy Ghost 
the Glory of the Lord, and sometimes Son, and sometimes Wisdom, 
and sometimes Angel, and sometimes God, and sometimes also Lord 
and Word." 

2. But although the two latter names, Lord and God, Kvplos and 
Geos, are peculiar to God, Justin very often applied them, according 
to the guidance of Scripture, to the Word or Son of God ; and he 
believed Him not barely to be called 4 , but truly to be 5 God and Lord, 
as is clear from the following passages out of his Dialogue with Trypho. 
Thus when he had, in p. 246. C. 1 , called Him Lord of Hosts, (Kvpiov 
dvi>dp,eu>v,) he afterwards, in p. 254. D.J, sets himself to prove, "that 
Christ is both God and Lord of Hosts," (on *ai 9e6s xal Kvpws r5>v 
Svi/a/xecoi/ 6 Xpurros :) and he establishes this from Psalms xxiii., xlvi., 
&c. Moreover, in p. 275. C. k , he says; "I will endeavour to con 
vince you, who know the Scriptures, that Another is, and is called, 
God and Lord, under Him 1 who is the maker of all things ;" just 
as in p. 281. D. m , he says concerning Him, " He is called God, and 
is God, and shall be," (Qebs KaXeTrcu, KOL Qens ecrrt, Kal eorat). And 
proofs [of this doctrine] Justin derived from the appearances which 
were made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, [and] Moses, to whom, (as 
Justin insists to Trypho, in passages so many as to be almost innu 
merable,) it was not God the Father, but the Word, who appeared. 

, 6 TOV 777 TOV TlaTpbs (3ov\r) 
lV, 0eou Se, e/c rov elvai 
TWV r 6Xuv KTifffJ-a 
[ 125. p. 218.] 
f [ 48. p. 143.] 

% 6n apxV ypb iravTW Ttav KTLffna- 
T(av 6 ebs yeyi VT]Kf TIVO. e 
eauroi) XoyiK^/v, tyris i<al 86a Kvpiov 
virb TOV Trvev/maTOS TOV ayiov /caA.etrai, 

7TOTC Se Vlbs, 7TOT6 5e ffOlpia, 7TOT6 5e 

&yye\os, Trore Se ebs, irore 8e Kvptos 
Kal \6yos. [ 61. p. 157.] 

h [This I conceive ought to be ren 
dered, not "in the beginning before 
all," but " as the beginning before all." 


edit. Bened. B.] 
1 [ 29. p. 126.] 
J [ 36. p. 133.] 

ras 7p0as, OTI e<rrl Kal Ae -yerat @fbs 
KalKvpLos eTepos vTrp(\.virb)Tbis TTOII)- 
rV TM o\<av. [ 56. p. 151.] 

1 [The reading introduced by Ste 
phens, without MS. authority, was 
virfp ; this Grabe followed, translating 
it "praeter," besides; but, as Dr. Bur 
ton noticed, instead of virep the Bene 
dictine editor restored virb from the 
MSS. This is followed in the transla 

58. p. 156.] 

yet distinguished as another than the Father. 697 

3. When, however, in most of these passages, and [particularly] ON BOOK n. 
in that very one which I have just quoted, [Justin] says, that He CH & C ^ lf 
who appeared to Abraham and to Moses was another God, (erepos JuSTIN M 
Geds,) he does not mean that the Son is of an essence alien or dif 
ferent from the Father, but only indicates His distinct subsistence 1 . fa6<rra- 
This is evident on a comparison of p. 283. A., and p. 227, &c. For ffl 
in the former passage he says n ; "The Creator of the universe will 
not be that God who spake to Moses, [saying] that He was the God 
of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ; but He 
who has been shewn to you to have appeared to Abraham and to 
Jacob, ministering to the will of the Creator of the universe" that 
is, the Word or Son of God. Whilst in the latter passage he speaks 
on this wise : "Trypho, there never will be, and from the begin 
ning of the world there never has been, any other God except Him 
who made and set in order this universe : nor do we believe our 76 
God to be one, and your God another, but Himself who led your 
fathers out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand and stretched 
out arm ; and in no other do we put our trust, (for there is none 
else,) but in Him in whom you also trust, the God of Abraham, [210] 
and of Isaac, and of Jacob." In the opinion, therefore, of Justin, 
God who made the world is the same as the God of Abraham, of 
Isaac, and of Jacob ; and yet is not the same : that is to say, He is 
the same in essence, but is not the same in person. I quit this argu 
ment for the consubstantiality of the Son derived from the name of 
God, after having simply noted one more passage out of the afore 
mentioned Dialogue, p. 340. D.P, in which Justin says concerning 
Joshua, that he distributed to the Israelites an inheritance, which 
was not eternal but only temporal, are ou Xpiarbs 6 6eo? a>i/, ot>Se vlos 
Qeov, " forasmuch as He was not Christ [who is] God, nor yet the 
Son of God." These words I have added, to stop the mouth of any 
Arian or Socinian who should deny that Christ is designated God, 
6 Qcos, by Justin, on the ground of the distinction which has been 
derived from Clement of Alexandria, Strom., book iii. p. 460. C.i, 
between 0e6s, without the article, and 6 6eos, with it. 

s ruv e 6\uv etrrat 0ebs oi5e &\\ov f]/j.u>v, a\\oi> 5e v/j.a>v 

6 r Mwcre? fliruv avr bv tlvai 0e&j/ ^yov^eQa ebi/, aAA. avrbv iiteivov rbv 

Kal &fbv IvaaK, Kal ebi/ eayay6vra rovs irarepas vfj.wv e/c 77)5 

, aAA. 6 a-rroSeixOtls vfjuv &<f)0ai Aiyvirrov fv X fi P^ fparata, Kal 

T$ A^paa/j. Kal r$ Ia:a>, rfj rov Troirj- vfyr)\$ ouS els a\\ov -riva T) 

r ov TU>V 6Xwv 6e\r](rci tnrr#*T*9. [ ou yap fffriv a\\ els TOVTOV, els t>v Kal 

60. p. 157.] W*ets fbv &ebv rov Afipaa/j., Kal I 

o^re effrai irore &\\os 0ebs, 5 Tpv- Kal IaK(a&. [ 11. p. 111.] 
<f>c0v, ofac fa a-rr aloavos, . . . TT\I]V rov p [ 113. p. 206.] 

-noiriaavros Kal Siard^ros r6l> rb irav *> [p. 548.] 


1 passim. 
Ps. xlv. 
LXX.] 11. 


698 Justin teaches that Christ is to be worshipped, i.e., is God. 

4. But lastly, besides this, Justin has in many passages 1 in the 
same Dialogue taught out of the Scriptures, that Christ is God [who 
is] to be worshipped : thus in p. 287. B. r , after quoting these words 
of the forty-fourth Psalm ; " He is Thy Lord, and thou shalt wor 
ship Him," he suggests that they imply, 6YI KOI Trpoa-Kvvrjros eort, /cat 
Qcbs, Kal Xpio-Tos that " He is to be worshipped, and is God, and 
Christ." And in p. 293. B, C. s , when he asks Trypho, whether he 
knew of any other in the Scriptures designated as " to be worship 
ped, and Lord, and God," except Him who created this universe, and 
Christ ;" he implies that the latter is so designated as well as the 
former. In the following page, p. 294. C.*, he again makes mention 
of the Scriptures, "which in express words demonstrate Christ to be 
both liable to suffering, and the object of worship, and God." Lastly, 
in p. 302. B. u , he shews from the Scriptures that " Christ is God, 
mighty and to be worshipped." That none, however, is an object 
of worship except the true God, is most clearly taught by Justin, 
Apol. I. p. 31. lin. 5, and p. 32. 1. 30 of my own edition; or p. 63 
and the following ones v of the Paris edition. Therefore he believed 
Christ to be such. 

ON 10. 


TATJAN. THERE are two passages of Tatian wherein he calls Christ God, 

which it will not be foreign to our purpose to notice. Thus in 
sect. 22. p. 54. lin. 8, of the latest edition x , which my excellent 
friend Mr. Worth has so well edited, he calls the Holy Ghost y " the 
Minister of the God who suffered, (rov bta<ovov TOV TTCTTOV^OTOS 0eoi5.) 
And in sect. 35. p. 77. lin. 9, &c. z , he has the following words; 
"We are not fools, ye Greeks, nor do we propound to you silly 
fables, when we declare that God was born in the form of man." 

itidem. And to the passages, which in this same section 2 were quoted from 

r [ 63. p. 160.] 

8 TTpOffKV^rbv, Kttl KvplOV, Kal 

r) TI &AAoj/ Ttj/o. 68. p. 165.] 
* at Sia/^jS?]/ rbv Xpiffrbu Kal 
rbv, Kal TrpoffKvvrjTbv, Kal ebv airo- 
. [ 68. p. 166.] 

v [16. p. 53.] 

The edition at Oxford, 1700.] 
[ 13. p. 255.] 

Xpurrbi oi/ra [eSijAaxre. 76. p. 174.] 

ei/ av- 

yeyovevat Karayy4\\ov- 
Ts. [ 21. p. 262.] 

Additional passages from Tatian and Theophilus. 699 

Theophilus of Antioch, I add two out of the third book to Autolycus. ON BOOKII. 
In p. 122. D. a , he says ; " For our lawgiver we have Him who is in- CH 4t 10t 
deed God," (yo^oQ^v e^o/xei/ rov OVTUS GeoV.) But that He who ap- THEOPHI - 
peared to Moses on mount Sinai and gave the law, was not God the 
Father, but the Son, Theophilus undoubtedly believed, with the en 
tire body of the fathers of that age, as he clearly enough indicates in 
book ii. p. 100. A. b Again, at the very end of book iii. he says, that 
the heathen decreed rewards and honours for such Christians, " as 
with sonorous voice revile God" (rots eixfxavas vppiov<ri TQV Geoi/). 
The Christians , however, were not compelled by the heathen to deny 
or revile the supreme God, the first cause of all things, but Christ, 
whom they used to confess to be the Son of God, and one God with [2121 
the Father. Him, therefore, Theophilus appears to point out here 
by the designation of God. 

ON CHAPTER V. [233] 



1. To the testimonies which have been adduced in proof of the 
Divinity of Christ out of the writings of Irenseus it will not be out 
of place l to add the following. In book i. chap. 2. p. 45, of the last > abs re. 
edition d , (which I shall always quote here,) in reciting the confession 
of faith 2 which the Catholic Church received from the Apostles and 2 symbo- 
their disciples, he sets forth Christ in the following words, as our lum fideu 
Lord and God, who, even after the future resurrection, is to be 
worshipped by all, according to the will of God the Father, line 15, 
&c. e : "That every knee should bow to Christ Jesus our Lord, 
and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the good pleasure of 
the invisible Father." Again, in book iii. chap. 10. p. 113. col. 1, [234] 
explaining the meaning 3 of those gifts which the wise men brought 3 rationem. 
to Christ then just born, he says, in line 32 f , that the frankincense 

& [ 9. p. 386.] e Iva Xpi<rT<? Irjrrou T$ icvpicp 

b [ 22. p. 365.] Kal e$, KOI aurripi, Kal a<, Kurd, 

c [It does not appear that Christians T^V evSoKiav rov Uarpbs rov aopdrov 

are meant, but rather Gentiles, who TTO.V y6vv [c. 10. p. 48.] 

obtain prizes for singing such things f Quoniam Deus, qui et notus in 

of God as are really an insult to Him.] Judceafactus est, et manifestus eis, qui 

d [That is Dr. Grabe s own edition, non quaerebant eum. [c. 9, 2. p. 

Oxford, 1702.] 184.] 

700 Explicit testimonies to the Divinity of 

APPENDIX, was offered unto Him " inasmuch as [He was] God, who was both 

GRABE S made known in Jewry, and was manifested unto them who sought 
NOTES. Him not j n the game book? chap> 18> p< 242 col j Hne Wf 

&c. f , he teaches concerning Christ, that He is "the Saviour of them 
that are saved, and the Lord of them that are under [His] dominion, 
and the God of those things that are created, and the Only-begotten 
of the Father." That is also worthy of observation which he ad 
vances respecting the union of the Godhead and the Manhood in the 
person of Christ, and the reason of it, in a following chapter (2Q.) p. 
247, last line, and p. 248, line 1, &c.&, in these words ; " Therefore 
He united, as we have said before, man with God. For unless man 
had overcome the adversary of man, the enemy would not have been 

1 SiKaius. duly 1 overcome. And again, unless God had given salvation, we 
should not have had it securely. And unless man had become united 
with God, he would not have been able to be a partaker of incorrtip- 
tion. For it behoved the Mediator between God and men, to bring 
them both together into amity and concord, by His own relation- 

3 olKfiSr-tj- ship 2 with the two." Further on, in chapter 23, col. 2, line 8 h , he 
teaches, that the prophets had intimated that "the Son of God, 
who is God," should come. And afterwards, in line 16, [he says ;] 
" He, (Habakkuk,) manifestly intimating that He is God, and that 
His coming should be to Bethlehem." Whence, in line 22, he con 
cludes i ; " God therefore became man, and the Lord Himself saved 
us." And in chap. 26, p. 25 7 J, after quoting the words of Isaiah 
respecting Christ, the Immanuel, he subjoins the following words of 
[235] his own, col. i. line 6, " Studiously therefore did the Holy Ghost 
signify by these words His generation, which is of the Virgin, and His 
substance, that He is God ; for the name Immanuel signifies this." 
And in col. ii. line 5 k : "And this, that He shall refuse the evil to 
choose the good, is characteristic of God, in order that we may not, 

f Salvator eorum qui salvantur, et 7. p. 211.] 

Dominus eorum qui sunt sub dominio, h Filius Dei, qui Deus est ... ma- 

et Deus eorum quae constituta sunt, et nifeste significans quoniam Deus, et 

unigenitus Patris. [c. 16, 7. p. 206.] quoniam in Bethleem adventus ejus. 

GUI/, KaQias Trpoe^a/iei/, rbv [c. 20, 4. p. 214.] 

tcp. Et yap /j.)) avdpcairos i o fbs ovv avOpcairos fytvero, Kal 

rbv avriirahov rov avdpwirov, avrbs Kvpios tVcocrei/ ^uas. [c. 21. p. 

OVK &> SiKaiws fViK^]Qt] 6 e xfy^s. traXiv 215.] 

re, t ftr) 6 ebs edcap-fiffaro rfyv trwrrj- J Diligenter igitur significavit Spi- 

plav, OVK 2h> jSeyScucos e(rxo/j.ev avr^v. ritus S. per ea, quae dicta sunt, gene- 

Kal et /ATI o~vvr}vcadr] 6 avdpcairos r$ e<, rationem ejus quae est ex Virgine, et 

OVK av r)Sui/^0?7 / ueTct<rx rrjs a<pQap- substantiam, quoniam Deus; Emma- 

trfay. v E5et yap rbv u.f<TiTi]v eou re nuel enim nomen hoc significat [c. 

Kal avdpwTrcav, Sia rys iSias irpbs e/care- 21, 4. p. 217.] 

povs oiKei6rriTos t ets (f>i\iav Kal bu.6voiuv k Quod autem non consentiet nequi- 

rovs afjKpoTfpous avvayayslv. [c. 18, titg, ut eligat bonum, proprium hoc est 

our Lord out of St. Irenceus. 701 

by the words butter and honey shall He eat, understand Him to be ON BOOK n. 
barely man, nor again by the name Immanuel suppose Him to be God CH 5 
without flesh." Moreover, from this same passage of Isaiah and lRENjEUS - 
those other words of the same prophet, in ix. 6, " And His name 
shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, the mighty God," Irenseus in 85 
the same work, book iv. chap. 66. p. 363 1 , shews it to have been 
predicted, " that the Word shall be flesh, and the Son of God the 
Son of man ; and [although] made that which we ourselves also are, 
He is [still] the mighty God, and has an ineffable generation 1 ." l genus. 
Lastly, in book v. chap. 14. p. 421, &c. m , the holy father thus ad 
dresses him to whom he sent his books : " Remember then, most 
beloved, that thou art redeemed by the flesh of our Lord, and re 
stored by His blood; both confessing [Him to be] God, arid firmly 
accepting His human nature," &c. Also chap. 17, p. 426. col. i. line 
19, &c. n , he says; " (Jesus) therefore, by forgiving sins, on the one 
hand healed the man (the paralytic), and on the other clearly shewed 
who He Himself was. For if no one can remit sins but God alone, and 
yet the Lord remitted them and healed men, it is manifest that He 
was the Word of God become the Son of man, receiving from the 
Father the power of remitting sins, because He was man and be 
cause He was God ; in order that, whilst as man He suffered with 
us, as God He might pity us, and remit us our debts, which we owe 
to God our Creator." But that Christ is one and the same God with 
the Creator, against whom we had sinned, Irenseus plainly intimates 
in what goes before, in p. 425, col. 1, line 36, in arguing as follows 
against the heretics : " Well therefore does His Word [the Word of 
God] say to the man, thy sins are forgiven thee ; He, against [236] 
whom we had sinned at the beginning, is the same who gives re 
mission of sins at the end. But if we have transgressed the pre 
cept of One, and it was Another that said, thy sins are forgiven thee/ 

Dei, uti non per hoc, quod manducabit nifeste ostendit, quis esset. Si enim 

butyrum et mel, nude soluminodo eum nemo potest remittere peccata, nisi so- 

hominem intelligeremus, neque rursus lus Deus, remittebat autem haec Do- 

per nomen Emmanuel sine carne eum minus, et curabat homines, manifes- 

Deum suspicaremur. [Ibid.] turn, quoniam ipse erat Verbum Dei, 

1 Quoniam Verbum caro erit, et Fi- Filius hominis factus, a Patre potesta- 

lius Dei filius hominis, et hoc factus, tern remissions peccatorum accipiens, 

quod et nos, Deus fortis est, et inenar- quoniam homo, et quoniam Deus; ut 

rabile habet genus. [c. 33, 11. p. quomodo homo compassus est nobis, 

273.] tanquam Deus misereatur nostri, et re- 

m Memor igitur, dilectissime, quo- mittat nobis debita nostra, quae Factori 

niam carne Domini nostri redemptus nostro debemus Deo. [p. 314.] 
es, et sanguine ejus redhibitus, et Deum Bene igitur Verbum ejus ad ho- 

confitens, et hominem ejus firmiter ex- minem dicit, remittunlur tibi peccata; 

cipiens. [p. 311.] idem ille, in quern peccaveramus in 

n Peccata igitur remittens hominem initio, remissionem peccatorum in fine 

quidem curavit, semetipsum autem ma- donans. Aut si alterius quidem trans- 

702 The Divinity and human nature of our Lord in a strict 

APPENDIX, such an one is neither good, nor true, nor just. For how can he be 
GRADE S good, who gives what is not his own? or just, who takes what be- 
NOTES. longg to another ? and how are ging truly remitted) unlesg He Him _ 

self, against whom we have sinned, has given the remission ?" For 
unless Christ be one God with the Father, this argument, which was 
alleged against heretics who held two Gods, recoils on the head of 
Irenseus, and he had shamefully contradicted himself. To these are 
to be added the passages, in which Irenseus refuted the Ebionites, 
who denied the Divinity of Christ : these however I now. omit, as our 
reverend author has adduced them, in opposition to Episcopius,*in his 
Judgment of the Catholic Church &c. chap. i. 3. 

2. Nor was it in an improper sense that Irenasus attributed Deity 
to Christ, as kings and priests used to be called gods : on the con 
trary, he believed Him to be truly and essentially God, as is plain 
from the following passages. In book iii. chap. 21 P , arguing against 
the heretics, who said that Jesus was " only a mere man begotten of 
Joseph," after other things he has the following, p. 249, col. 2, line 
19, &c. : " But it is obvious to all, who have attained but to a mo- 

1 modicum, derate 1 knowledge of the truth, to see 2 that He (Christ), beyond all 

2 adest. men ^Q t jj en ii ve( j } jg declared by all the prophets, and apostles, and 

by the Spirit Himself, to be PROPERLY God, and Lord, and King 
eternal, and Only-begotten, and the Word incarnate. But the 
Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if He had 
been merely man like all others. But that He had in Him a gene 
ration illustrious beyond all men, even that which is from the Most 

3 functus High, His Father; and likewise underwent 3 that excellent genera 
tion which was of the Virgin, both these do the divine Scriptures 

4 indecorus. testify of Him : and that He is man without comeliness*, and passi 
ble, &c. ; and that He is the holy Lord, and the wonderful Counseller, 
and glorious in His appearance, and the mighty God, coming on the 
clouds as the judge of all, all these things the Scriptures prophesied 

gressi sumus praeceptum, alius autem ritu, adest videre omnibus, qui vel 
erat qui dixit, remittuntur tibi peccata modicum de veritate attigerint. Haee 
ttia, neque bonus, neque verax, neque autem non testificarentur Scripturse de 
Justus est hujusmodi. Quomodo enim eo, si, similiter ut omnes, homo tan- 
bonus, qui non ex suis donat? aut turn fuisset Sed quoniam praeclaram 
quomodo Justus, qui aliena rapit ? praeter omnes habuit in se earn quae 
Quomodo autem vere remissa sunt est ab altissimo Patre genituram, prae- 
peccata, nisi ille ipse, in quern pec- clara autem functus est et ea, quae est 
cavimus, donavit remissionem. [p. ex Virgine, generatione, utraque Scrip- 
313.] turae divinae de eo testificantur : et 
P Nude tantum hominem dicunt ex quoniam homo indecorus et passibilis, 
Joseph generatum . . . quoniam autem &c. et quoniam Dominus sanctus, et 
ipse proprie praeter omnes qui fuerunt mirabilis Consiliarius, et decorus spe- 
tunc homines, Deus, et Dominus, et cie, et Deus fords, super nubes veniens 
rex aeternus, et unigenitus, et Verbum universorum Judex,omnia deeo Scrip- 
incarnatum, praedicatur et a prophetis turae prophetabant. [c. 19, 2. p. 212.] 
omnibus, et apostolis, et ab ipso Spi- 

sense set forth by St. Irenceus. 703 

of Him." In like manner iv. 14, p. 302, col. i. line 11^, he says con- ON BOOK u. 
cerning the Saviour, that He is one, " who receives testimony from all, CH> 
that He is TRULY MAN, and that He is TRULY GOD, from the Father, ^^L^* 
from the Spirit, from the angels, from creation itself, from men, and * ? 
from apostate spirits," &c. On these words in my recent edition I 
have with good reason added the following note : " So clearly does 
he here express the truth of the Divine, as well as the human nature 
of Christ, that no place of escape is left for adversaries." Lastly, in 
addition to all this, there are in proof of the true Divinity of Christ 
the Divine attributes, which Irenseus expressly ascribes to Him, and 
indeed those [very attributes] which Arians and Photinians alike, both 
ancient and modern, have denied to Him, I mean eternity and incom 
prehensibility, if I may use such a word. Now the former, [eternity], 
is treated of separately in book iii. ; with respect to the latter, [in 
comprehensibility], let it suffice to adduce here the remarkable 1 words 1 egregia. 
in which the incarnation of the Son of God is described, book iii. c. 
18, p. 241, col. ii. line 16 r . " The Invisible became visible, and the 
Incomprehensible became comprehensible, and the Impassible pas 
sible, and the Word man, summing up 2 all things into His own 2 recapitu- 
self." lans " 


1 . WITH Irenseus I join Melito 3 , as a marked witness of the Divinity 86 
of Christ, following herein the example of the anonymous author of 
a book against the heresy of Artemon, written at the beginning of 
the third century, a fragment of which has been preserved in Euse- 
bius, Eccles. Hist. v. 28, where among other things we read* : " For 
who is ignorant of the writings of Irenseus, and of Melito, and of the 
rest, which declare Christ to be God and man ?" Of the works of 
Melito, indeed, there is extant in our days scarcely any thing more 
than the titles, as they are enumerated by Eusebius E. H. iv. 26, 
and by Jerome, in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers. Now as 
one of these titles is rrepi eWeo/uarov GeoO, "concerning God incor 
porate," theologians have interpreted this " of God incarnate," that 

i Ab omnibus accipiens testimonium, bum homo, universa in semetipsum re- 

quoniam VERB HOMO, et quoniam VERB capitulans. [c. 16, 6. p. 206.] 

DEUS, a Patre, a Spiritu, ab angelis, ab * Melito flourished about the year 

ipsa conditione, ab hominibus, et ab 170. Cave. BOWYER. 

apostaticis spiritibus. [c. 6, 7. p. 235.] l TO. yap Elpr]vaiov re Kal MeAfrwi/os 

r Jnvisibilis visibilis f actus, et in- Kal roov \onruv TIS ayvoei /8i/3Aia, ebs 

comprehensibilis factus comprehensi- Kal avQpcairov KaTayy4\\ovTa rbv Xpiff- 

bilis, et impassibilis passibilis, et Ver- r6v. [H. E. v. 28.] 

704 Testimonies from the extant fragments ofMelito. 


APPENDIX, is, of Christ, and have used it in proof of the Divinity of the Saviour. 

GRABE S But that Melito in that work treated not of God incorporate 11 , but 
corporeal (the word eWco^aroy having both significations), Cotelerius, 
among others, has satisfactorily proved, (in a note on the seventeenth 
of the Clementine Homilies,) from the words of Origen in Theodoret, 
Question 20, on Genesis, and of Gennadius of Marseilles, in chap. iv. 
of his work on the Doctrines of the Church. 

2. Passing by this title, therefore, let us see whether, notwith 
standing that the entire works of Melito are lost, some fragments 
of them cannot be found somewhere, in which the Divinity of Christ 
is asserted ; and two such fragments most worthy to be noted came 
in my way some time ago in reading the Hodegus of Anastasius, for 
in that work, chap. xii. p. 217, the Theodosians and Gaianites adduce 
the following words oat of an Oration of Melito of Sardis on the 
passion of Christ x : O 6ebs -rreTrovQev imb Segias lo-parjAmSos* " God 
suffered by the right hand of Israel." And Anastasius himself, 
chap. xiii. pp. 258 and 260, quotes from the third Sermon of Me 
lito, concerning the Incarnation of Christ/ (jrepl o-apKao-ews Xpto-rot),) 
in which the author is arguing against the heresy of Marcion, who 
denied the true Divinity of Christ, the following words worthy of all 
preservation 1 y ; " There is then no necessity, for those who may have 
understanding, to prove the truth and reality 2 of His soul and body, 
of that human nature which we have, by what He did after His 
baptism ; for what Christ did after His baptism, and especially His mira 
cles, did, he [Melito] says, manifest and prove to the world, His God 
head hidden in the flesh. For the same Person, being at once God 
and perfect man, proved to us His tw r o natures, on the one hand His 
Godhead, by His miracles during the three years after His baptism, 
and, on the other, His manhood in the thirty years prior to His bap 
tism, during which on account of His imperfection in respect to the 
flesh the signs of His Divinity were hidden, although He was very 
God before the worlds." On a comparison of this passage with that 
which I have quoted from the anonymous writer, 1, in which he 
testifies, that Melito declared Christ to be alike both God and man, 

u ["incorporate;" Cotelerius word 
is " incarnato."] 

* [Reliq. Sacr., vol. i. 116.] 

y us ovSefMia avdyKr), rots vow pov 
erty, e| wv /jLera rb /SaTma^ua 6 Xpiarbs 
e7rpae, Trapirrrav rb aATjfles Kal a<pav~ 
raarov TT}S tyvxys avrov Kal rov (ra^a- 
ros TTJS Kad r//uas av6p(airii/r)s yvaecas. 
ra yap juera rb ^dirriff/JLa, (prialv, virb 
Xpio~rov irpaxOevra, Kal ftaXiffra ra 


1 cedro. 


yap &v 6/m.ov re K 
rt\fios 6 avrbs, TO.S Svo avrov ovaias 
fTTiffTCtxraro T/.uiV, r^v /mtv dfOTrjra av- 
rov Sia TU>V (Tfi^icav eV TT> rpi^ria. rfj 
/Aero rb /SaTTTHrfAa, T^V 8e avQpu>Tr6 rir]Ta 
avrov eV TO?S rpiaKOvra xpdvois roils irpb 
rov fia-rrrio-ULaros, ev oTs Sta rb dreAeS 
rb Kara adpKa aTreKpvfiri ra o Tjfj.e ia rrjs 
avrov 060T7JTOS, Ka nrep Qfbs aATjflTjs 
irpoauavios virapx ( > >v - [Reliq. Sacr., 
vol. i. p. 115.] 

Wrongly placed among the adversaries of the Nicene faith. 705 

I can hardly doubt, that he had these very words of Melito in view. ON BOOK n. 
In conclusion I add the following passage, which occurs in the Pas- CH 5t 
chal Chronicle, on the years of Christ 164 and 165, as cited from the MELITO. 
Apology of Melito z . In this passage I conceive that the preposition 
err! before rov Xpiarov ought to be omitted, and the words to be 
translated, " and of His Christ." " We are not worshippers of sense- 
less stones, but of God only, who is before all things, and over all 
things, and over Christ Himself, (KOI eVi rov Xptcrrov avrov,) [who 
is] truly God the Word before all ages." The reasons for this con 
jectural emendation I shall give in the second volume of my Spicile- 
gium, of the fathers of the second century, which, if it please God, 
will be published shortly. Meanwhile I here submit to the reader 
how frivolously the author of the English work entitled " The judg 
ment of the fathers concerning the doctrine of the Trinity, opposed 
to Dr. G. Bull s Defence of the Nicene Faith a , " P- 4, has enu 
merated Melito amongst the adversaries of the Holy Trinity, being 
led to do so simply by the title of his book, " Of the creation and 
production 1 of Christ," which Eusebius mentions, iv. 26. The an-. l 
swer to be made to this is abundantly shewn by Valesius in his note 
on the passage, so that I need not enlarge on it. 

ON CHAP. VI. 2, &c. [253] 



1. To the passages adduced from Clement of Alexandria in sup 
port of the Consubstantiality of the Son I add the following, which 
were omitted by our reverend author, as it seems, for the sake of 
brevity. In the Protrepticon, p. 5. D. occur these words b ; " Now 
at length hath appeared unto men this Word Himself, who alone is 
both, both God and man, the author to us of all good." And in a 
subsequent page, 8. C., these ; "John, indeed, the herald of the [254] 
Word, in some such way as this exhorted [men] to become ready for 

z OUK eV/uei/ \i6uv ovSe/niai/ (uaQt\ffiv b vvv 8?) eVe^ai/r/ avOpuirois avrbs 

^6uTcav OepaTTevral, aAAa IJLOVOV eov, ovros 6 \6yos, 6 ^6vos &/ui(p(i}, eos re 

rov irpo TTo.vr(tiv /cat 4-nl TrdVrcoj , nal firl Kal &v6p<*)Tros, airdvTcav tyiaV ainos <rya- 

rov XpLcrrov O.VTOV UVTUS tov \6you irpb Quv. [p. 7.] 

aiuivuiv eV/xej/ 6pr]ffKfvTai. [Dr. llouth, c 6 itadwrjs 6 K7jpv rou \6yov 

Reiiq. Sacr., i. p. 126, maintains, as ravrrj Try Trape/caAet erot/uoi/s yivearOai 

others had done, that for ^TT} we should tis 0eoG TOV Xpivrov Trapovaiav. [p. 

read tn, " and also of Christ." B.] 9.] 

a [4to. Lond. 1695.] 

BULL. z z 

706 Additional testimonies from Clement of Alexandria. 



1 A6yos 

2 Trai 

[or, ac 
cording to 



5 irapa eov 



TTJ rov 
apdpov irpo- 

the advent of God, [even] Christ." In the first book of the Pseda- 
g-ogus, c. 2. p. 80, A., Christ, the Instructor of the faithful, is said 
to d be " God in the form of man, undefiled, ministering to the will of 
the Father, God the Word \ who is in the Father, who is at the right 
hand of the Father, [being] God together with His [visible] form 
also." He is God even as the Father [is God], although He is called 
the Minister of the Father, whom He follows in order ; just as the 
deacon is the minister of the priest, and yet is truly both a nfian and 
a clergyman, just as the priest is. The third chapter of the same 
book begins with these words 6 ; " In every thing does the Lord give 
benefit and succour, both as man, and as God : as God, forgiving our 
sins ; as Man, instructing 2 us, that we may not sin." In chap. 3. of 
the second book of the Paedagogus, p. 161, D. he says f : " See, the 
Lord ate food 3 in a mean dish, and made His disciples sit down on 
the ground upon the grass, and girt Himself with a towel and washed 
their feet, the God and Lord of all things, void of all pride." Fur 
ther also in Strom, vi. p. 684, A.s, [Clement] calls Christ " God in 
the flesh," (0e6i/ lv <rap/i o>) ; and throughout this treatise of the 
Stromata frequently calls Him "the Saviour God," (Somjp Geoy,) 
having in view the words of David in Psalm xxiv. 5, " He shall re 
ceive blessing from the Lord, and mercy 4 from God His Saviour 5 ." 
In book vii. of the Stromata, p. 733, he quotes these words, and adds 
the following of his own h ; "David, as it seems, shewed to us, in 
passing, that the Saviour is God." See how often Clement has 
given to Christ the title of God, which he would not have done, un 
less, with the Nicene fathers, he had believed that He was very God 
of very God. 

2. Nor can any one object that Clement, in book iii. of the Stro 
mata, p. 460, C. 1 , makes a distinction between God (0os) simply 6 , 
[i. e. used without the article], and with the article prefixed 7 , that 
is, 6 eoy, and in the same passage teaches that in the latter mode 
the Almighty or supreme God is indicated; whereas in all the 
passages which have been now cited, Christ is called God (0eos), 
without the article prefixed. For here are other passages, where He 
is called 6 0eo s. In book i. of the Paedagogus, c. 5. p. 92, A. k , we 

eureAeT, Kal KareK\ivtv TOVS /u.a6r)Tas 
eirl TTJS Tr6as, Kal TOVS TrdSas 
sviiTTtv avrwv aaftdvcp Trepifaad/jifvos b 
aTv<pos &fbs Kal Kvpios TWV e 6\<av. 
[p. 190.] 

I [P 812 ] 

0ebi> flvai r^v (TWTripa cbre 5ei|ei 6 Ao- 
0/8. [p. 866.] 

1 [p. 548. 

k CP. 1 

TOS, TrarpiKcj) fleAT^uan diditovos, \6yos 
ebs, 6 ev T<f Tlarpl, 6 e/c Se|tw^ TOU 
Tlarphs, ffvv Kal T$ ffX nfJ-o.TL e6s. 
[p. 99.] 

e trdvTa ovivri<riv 6 Kvpios Kal iravra 
avpeAe?, KOI ws avQpwiros, Kal &>s erfs" 
rd jjifv a.fji.apT fiiu.aTa ws 0ebs octets* els 
Se rb /a.)) fj-a/uiapTdi eiv iraiSaywycai ws 
.[p. 101.] 
) 6 Kvpios 

Testimonies from a treatise ascribed to Caius. 707 

read of "God the Word, who became man for us;" (TOI> 0e6i/ TOV ON BOOK n. 
\6yov, TOV 6Y was avQpunov ycvopevov ) and in a following chapter, CH - 6 - 
7. p. 110, C. D. 1 , of "the Lord God" and " the Divine Word," 6 CLEM - AL - 
060? Kvptos, and 6 Qebs Xoyo?. In like manner in book ii. of the 
same work, c. 8. p. 182, C. m , he twice calls Christ "God," and, "God 
loving unto man," TOV Qeov and TOV <pi\dv6payn-ov Qeov. Lastly, in 
book vii. of the Stromata, p. 703, B., he has the following words, 
which are remarkable, not only on account of the article prefixed, 
but also on account of the attribute of omniscience ascribed to 
Christ, and other titles 11 ; " Ignorance does not attach to the God 
(TOV 0o{5), who before the foundation of the world was the coun 
sellor of the Father. For this was the Wisdom in which Almighty 
God delighted. For the Son is the power of the Father, inasmuch 
as before all things that were made He was the most principal 1 
Word of the Father, and His Wisdom," &c. On the omniscience 
of the Son of God, whereby He scrutinizes the innermost thoughts 
of the hearts, and His omnipotence also, see the preceding page, 
702, A. B., and the following one, 704, B., to say nothing of other 

ON CHAP. VIII. 1. [ 27 1 



WE no longer possess the treatise of Caius here cited, nep\ iravrbs t 
(On the Universe,) entire: we have however a large fragment of it, 
that portion in which he treated " of Hades, in which the souls both [280] 
of the just and of the unjust are contained," edited first by Hce- 
schel, and not very long ago inserted by Le Moyne in his collection 
of various sacred writers ; although he makes Hippolytus the author 
of it. Now we there read the following : " And all, both just 
and unjust, shall be brought into the presence of God the Word ; 
for unto Him hath the Father committed all judgment. And He, 
whom we call Christ, comes as Judge, accomplishing the Father s 

1 [p. 131, 2.] TOV UaTpbs, Kal ffo<pia O.VTOV. K.A. 

[p. 214.] [p. 832.] 

n ayvoia oi X aTrreroi TOV eoO, TOV iravTes Se Sifcaioi TC Kal &SiKOi *v<a- 

irpb KaTOj8o\7/s i<6o~/J.ov (rvfj.{$ov\ov ycvo- TTLOVTOV QeoG \6yov ctx0rj<roTcu TOVTC? 

fj-evov TOV UaTp6s. O.VTI] yap i\v croQia 77 ybp TlaT^p T^V Kpiffiv traaav Se Sw/ce. 

irpoaixaiptv o TravTOKparcap e6s Svva- Kal avT^s jSowA^i/ HaTpbs eV/TeAcoj Kpt- 

fJLis yap TOV eov 6 vlbs, S.TC irpb TTO.V- T^S irapayiveTat, ftv XpHnbi/ irpovayo- 

T<av TUV ysvofjitvttiv apxiKwTaTos \6yos pevofjifv. [Le Moyne, Var. Sac., p. 59.] 

z z 2 


Additional testimonies from Hippolytus. 


APPENDIX, will." I have no doubt that it is to these last words that Photius 
referred, in the passage which was quoted in 1. of this chapter, 
where he says, " declaring the appellation itself of Christ." Con 
cerning this appellation Christ see below, p. 187, col. 2. [book iii. 
chap. 2. 1. p. 403.] Moreover, he seems to have had the words 
" into the presence of God the Word," (eVo>7rtoi/ 0coC Adyov,) in his 
mind, when he wrote, "however, respecting the Divinity of Christ 
our true God, he treats most accurately :" although no doubf there 
existed in this treatise many other passages, even more express, con 
cerning the Divinity of Christ and His ineffable generation from God 
the Father. 

OJN T 2. 


1 ex Ora- 

2 JlTVlCf,l>. 

4 Tbv &v- 





Tiva <a- 


1. OTHER very clear testimonies of Hippolytus to the Divinity of 
Christ are contained among several of his sayings cited by Theo- 
doret, Dialogue ii. torn. iv. p. 88, &c., and in the fifth of the Acts 
Lateran Council, in Labbe s Councils, torn. vi. Thus in the fore- 
mentioned 88th page [of Theodoret,] the following passage is quoted 
from his discourse 1 on the Distribution of Talents : " One might 
say that these and the heterodox approach very near 2 each other, 
being both in error in a similar way. For they also either hold that 
Christ was born into life a mere man, denying the talent of His Di 
vinity ; or, acknowledging the Godhead 3 , they on the other hand take 
away the manhood 4 , teaching that He set a phantom 5 before the eyes 
of those who beheld Him as man ; not having borne manhood 6 , but 
rather having become a phantomlike appearance 7 ; as, for instance, 
Marcion and Valentinus, and the Gnostics, by separating the Word 
off from the flesh, throw away the one talent, the incarnation." 
The words of the same Hippolytus in a comment on Psalm ii., which 
also we adduce on the authority of Theodoret, who cites them in p. 
89 P, are likewise worthy mention: "This is He who, having come 

rovrovs 5e KOI TOVS Tepo$6ovs <f)"f)- 
V &v Ti? yeiTviav, cr^aAAo^ueVous 
Kal yap Kaxe ivoi ijroi 
d/ji.o\oyov(Ti irf^vKfvai 
T^V Xpiar^v els rbv &iot>, TTJS Qe6rriros 
O.VTOV T}) Ta.Xa.vrov apvov/j.ei/oi JJTOL Tbu 
~bv 6[j.o\oyovi>Ts 

ras otyeis CIVT&V T>V 

us &v- 

Qpuirov, ov <pop4ffavTa &vOpwirov, aAAa 
SoKTjcriV Tiva d>a0>iaTc68Tj fjia\\ov 7670- 
veVat, olov ticnrfp Map/ctajf /cat Ova\ei/~ 
Tlvos, KOI ol r^axTTt/coi, TTJS (Tapitbs airo- 
SiacnruvTfs T^JV \6yov, Tb ev Td\avTov 
airofid\\oi>Tai, TTJV eva.v9pu>TVT)ffiv. [vol. 
i. p. 281.] 

P OVTOS 6 irpoe\6<bv eh TOV K6fffj.ov, 
eos KCU oivdptairos <pa.vep(aQi]. Kal TOV 

Farther extracts testifying the true Divinity of Christ. 709 

into the world, was manifested as God and Man. Now His human ON BOOK n. 

nature 1 we may easily perceive, when He hungers, and is weary, and CH> 8 2 

thirsts through fatigue, &c. His Divinity 2 on the other hand we HIPPOLY- . 

may evidently see, when He is adored by angels, and beheld by i T ^ &]/ _ 

shepherds, and expected by Simeon, and witnessed to by Anna, Qpuirov 

and sought by the Magi, and pointed out by a star ; and [when] * 

at the marriage He makes water wine, and rebukes the sea, tossed 

by the violence of the winds, and walks upon the sea, and makes 

one blind from birth to see, and raises Lazarus^ four days dead, 

and performs various mighty deeds, and forgives sins, and gives 

authority to His disciples." The same father, in a sermon on Elka- 

nah and Hannah, quoted in p. 88, called Christ God, speaking thusi; 

" There were three seasons in the year which typified the Saviour 

Himself, in order that He might accomplish the mysteries which were [282] 

prophesied of Him. : at the passover, that He might shew Himself to 

be Him that was to be sacrificed as a Lamb, and be manifested as 

the true Passover, as the apostle says ; (I Cor. v. 7,) * Our Passover 

is sacrificed for us, [even] Christ, [who is] God 3 /" He ascribed the 3 xpia-rbs 

attribute of Divine omnipresence also to Christ in his treatise on the 0eos - 

Passover, from which the following words are quoted in the fore- 

mentioned volume of the Councils, col. 287, 288 r : "He was en 

tire in all and in every place, and, though He filled the universe, 

He disrobed Himself naked * before all the principalities of the 4 avraire- 

air, and for a little while he cries that the cup might pass [from 

Him,] in order that He might truly shew that He was man also." 

Observe the phrase man also; because, that is, He had another 

nature besides, and was God. 

2. Besides the above, there are other statements of Hippolytus 
out of a commentary of his on the Book of Genesis. That com 
mentary indeed is lost : still some fragments of it have been pre 
served in what are commonly called the Catenas of the fathers on 

ftZ/ avOpWTTOV avrOV eUKo AaJS <TT\ VOfiV , q Tpe?$ Ktttpol TOV fViaVTOV TTpOfTVTT- 

8Ve ireivq, Kal Kama, Kal Ka/j.vcav Si\j/a OVPTO els avrov TOV crcaTTJpa, tva. ra 

K. A. To 5e OeiKbv avrov Trd\iv (pave- TrpotyrjrtvOevTa eVl avrov jj.varripia eiri- 

pws tanv i Seu/, ore VTT ayye\uv irpov- re\eo~r} eV p.ev ry Tracr^-a, Lva eavrbv 

Kvvelra.1, Kal 0ea>pe?Tai virb TroijUeVcoj/, frtfcfgjj r bv /ueAAoira &s irpS&arov 

Kal irpovSoKarai virb Su/uecbi , Kal inrb 6vfffdat, Kal a.X-r}Qivov iraff^a Se tKvv- 

v Ai/j>T7s naprvpelrai, Kal ^re irai virb ffOai, cos 6 aTr6aro\os A.e -yef TO 5e irdff- 

Mdyuv, Kal (n}fj.aiverai Si arrrepos, Kal x a flf*&v virep r)/j.S>v ervOij, Xpiaros 6 

vSoop eV yd/j.ois oivov aTrcpydfcrai, Kal &e6s. [vol. i. p. 267.] 

0aActTT|7 VTTO fiias avepuv Kivovfj.evr) r "OAos -f\v eV irafft Kal travra^ov, ye- 

tiriTip.a, Kal eirl OaXacrarfs ireptTraTe?, fj.iffa. s Se rb TTO.V irpbs ird<ras ras aepiovs 

Kal TvfyXov 4v yevfTvjs 6pav wote i, Kal ap^as yv/j.vbs aj TOTreSuaaTO, KOI Trpbs 

VfKpbv Ad^apov rerpa^/j-fpov aviara, o\iyov ftoa -rrapeXQeiv rb Tror-fjpiov, tva 

Kal TToi/ctAas Swd/Jieis reAe?, Kal afj.ap- Sei^rj a\r]6us, 6n Kal avBpcaTros "f\v. 

rias a(piii(Ti, Kal e^ovariav 8i8oi>ffi /j.a&r)~ [vol. ii. p. 45.] 
TOWS. [vol. i. p. 268.] 

710 Testimonies out of fragments of Hippolytus ; 



1 " fruitful 



2 Kal eV 

3 Kara rb 

4 (pvffiKws. 
6 avcvpoi- 


1 [ver. 25. 

8 ye TOt. 

9 /CCtT< 



the fore-mentioned book of Moses : some of which were transcribed 
at Rome by Isaac Vossius and were sent by him to the very learned 
Dr. John Mill, who out of his especial kindness towards me obligingly 
communicated them to me. Now amongst these fragments there 
occur the following words on ch. xlix. ver. 22, vibs iju^/ieW iwo-?^, 
" Joseph is a grown son 1 9 ;" " For since the only-begotten Word of 
God, being God of God," (observe the phrase of the Nicene coun 
cil itself, as above p. 101. col. 1. [p. 215,] "Light of tfght,") 
" emptied Himself, according to the Scriptures, voluntarily lowering